In Wildcat Haven Community Interest Company v Scottish Ministers, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to the approval of a wind farm development in the Scottish Highlands on grounds of environmental harm to the endangered Scottish wildcat population.
The claimant, Wildcat Haven, a conservation organisation, argued that the Scottish Ministers had acted unlawfully in granting consent for the development without properly assessing the risk to one of the world’s most threatened species. It contended that the decision breached obligations under the Habitats Directive and domestic environmental law, particularly the duty to ensure that developments do not adversely affect the integrity of protected species habitats.
Wildcat Haven submitted that the environmental impact assessment underpinning the decision was flawed, failing to adequately consider cumulative effects on wildcat populations already under significant threat from habitat loss, persecution, and interbreeding with domestic cats.
The Scottish Ministers defended the lawfulness of their decision, maintaining that all relevant environmental factors were properly assessed and that the statutory procedures had been complied with. They further argued that the case was brought by a body lacking sufficient standing to pursue the claim, since Wildcat Haven was not directly affected by the development in a way that would meet the legal threshold.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that Wildcat Haven did not have standing to bring the case. Lord Sales, giving judgment, stated: “The law of standing is designed to ensure that challenges to governmental decision-making are brought by those with a genuine interest and sufficient connection to the matter. While environmental protection is of profound public importance, that does not mean that any body may litigate in the public interest without limit.”
The Court’s ruling has significant implications for the ability of NGOs and community groups to bring environmental challenges, narrowing the scope for public interest litigation in the environmental sphere. The decision may limit the role of smaller conservation organisations in contesting government approvals of projects with potential ecological impacts, placing greater emphasis on statutory bodies and larger NGOs with recognised legal standing.
This case is significant because it highlights the tension between environmental protection and procedural access to the courts, raising questions about whether the current legal framework adequately enables civil society to defend biodiversity in the face of development pressures.
