Hall v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Hereford cattle challenge refused

The High Court has refused permission for a judicial review of Defra's decision to treat Hereford cattle as a single breed when allocating native breed support payments, describing the claim as a merits challenge in the guise of a legality one. In Hall v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2026] EWHC 2623 (Admin), Clare Padley, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, also refused an extension of time, but held that the claim was an Aarhus Convention claim.

The claimant breeds what he calls Hereford (Original Population) cattle, which he argues are a distinct breed from North American derived animals. On 2 June 2025 Defra replaced its Native Breeds at Risk list with a Native Breeds Support List, following a call for evidence and advice from the UK Genetics for Livestock and Equines Committee. The new list merged original populations into their main breed. Hereford was therefore classed as not at risk, and the claimant's sub-population lost eligibility for payments under the Agriculture Act 2020. He also challenged a September 2025 refusal to use enforcement powers under the Animal Breeding Regulation against the Hereford Cattle Society, the interested party.

The claim was issued on 13 October 2025, outside the three month limit in CPR 54.5. The claimant argued that time ran from later letters supplying reasons. The judge held that the later correspondence did not amount to fresh decisions, so time ran from 2 June 2025 and expired on 2 September. Applying Maharaj, she weighed all the circumstances but found no good reason to extend. The claimant knew the substance of the decision by 5 August, was advised by experienced solicitors, and framed his pre-action letter as a challenge to the August response rather than the June decision. Macrae v Herefordshire Council did not assist, because he had not been left in the dark about the basis of the decision.

Although it was not strictly necessary, the judge went on to consider the merits. Citing R (Mott) v Environment Agency, she said a reviewing court should be very slow to find perversity in the scientific conclusions of an expert decision-maker. Section 1(1)(g) of the 2020 Act conferred a broad, discretionary policy power that was not tied to the breed definition in the Animal Breeding Regulation. It was not arguable that following advice from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation and the committee in favour of a whole-breed approach was irrational. That remained so although 54% of consultation responses opposed merging original populations and genetic differences between sub-populations might be established. The committee had also considered much of the claimant's evidence.

The judge noted that adopting the claimant's position would probably have removed more than 90% of UK Hereford cattle from the society's remit. She characterised the claim as a pure merits challenge, a point reinforced when counsel abandoned the request for a declaration on categorisation during the hearing.

The challenge to the refusal to enforce failed for the same reasons. Article 47 applies where non-compliance is established, and the alleged non-compliance rested on the same contested distinction between breeds and sub-populations. The judge added that the real dispute was with the society's refusal to accept the claimant's arguments, a matter not amenable to judicial review.

On costs protection, the judge found that the claim fell within Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. Section 1 of the 2020 Act and the earlier Environmental Stewardship Regulations 2005 are national law relating to the environment, so the case differed from R (Global Feedback) v HM Treasury, where the environmental link was tangential. The Court of Appeal decision in that case is under appeal to the Supreme Court. Neither the defendant nor the society had made a compliant application to vary the costs limits under CPR 46.27(5), so the standard limits applied.

The claimant's Aarhus costs of £7,111.67 were set off against the costs he owed on permission and the extension of time, and the £5,000 cap was applied and divided equally. He must pay £2,500 each to the defendant and the society.