AC-2024-LON-002644 - [2025] EWHC 2761 (Admin)

My conclusion is this. Even if I were to assume in Natural England’s favour that what can be shown is Limb (a) real-world affordability of an increase beyond the Rule 26 Caps of £10k per claimant, to the increased caps sought by Natural England of £20,000 (Wild Justice) and £30,000 (Badger Trust) or some intermediate position, I have still been left wholly unpersuaded by Natural England as to Limb (b) and objective unreasonableness. I would reach the same conclusion even if the Rule 26 Caps were in the nature of placeholder caps, so that the question of variation is approached by reference to prohibitive expensiveness, addressing the Rule 27 variation provisions as if the levels within the Rule 26 Caps provisions had no relevance or presumptive gravitational force at all. And I would reach the same conclusion even if Limb is a standard, in the context of access to environmental justice, of “reasonable affordability”. I think this is a clear-cut case.