Environment Agency vs High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

This case involved an application by the Environment Agency (EA) for an interim injunction to prevent High Speed Two (HS2) Limited from carrying out certain earthworks, due to concerns about groundwater protection.

TLDR:

• The Environment Agency sought an interim injunction against HS2 Limited.
• The dispute centered on earthworks potentially affecting groundwater.
• The court dismissed the application, focusing on the jurisdictional threshold.

The Environment Agency (EA) applied for an interim injunction under section 44(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, seeking to halt earthworks by High Speed Two (HS2) Limited at Glasshouse Wood Cutting and Stonehouse Cutting. The EA argued that these works could negatively impact groundwater, which is already under pressure in the area.

The EA's application was supported by extensive evidence, including over 1700 pages of documents. The EA's primary concern was that the proposed earthworks would intersect vulnerable water bodies, leading to potential deterioration of groundwater quality and quantity.

HS2, on the other hand, argued that the proposed earthworks, referred to as 'dry digs', would not affect groundwater as they would be conducted above the water table. HS2 had implemented several control measures to ensure that the works would not impact groundwater, including the excavation of trial pits to monitor groundwater levels.

The court had to determine whether the EA's application met the threshold conditions under section 44(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows the court to grant interim relief in urgent cases to preserve evidence or assets. The court found that the case was one of urgency but concluded that the EA had not demonstrated that the order sought was necessary to preserve assets.

The court noted that the EA's evidence did not convincingly show that the 'dry digs' alone would likely cause deterioration of groundwater. The control measures proposed by HS2, such as stopping work if groundwater was encountered, were deemed sufficient to mitigate any potential risks.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the EA's application for an interim injunction, emphasizing the need to avoid interfering with the arbitral process more than necessary. The court also highlighted the importance of resolving the dispute through arbitration as soon as possible.

The case underscores the complexities involved in balancing environmental protection with large-scale infrastructure projects and provides valuable insights for legal practitioners in environmental and construction law.

Legal representatives: Estelle Dehon KC and Riccardo Calzavara for the Claimant, Richard Kimblin KC and Daniel Henderson for the Defendant.

Judicial Panel: Mrs. Justice Joanna Smith DBE

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1560 (TCC)