High Court hands down landmark judgment on cost cap variations

Badger Trust and our partners, Wild Justice, have won a landmark case after Natural England tried to increase the cap on costs afforded to small charities.

On 16 October 2025, an attempt by Natural England (NE) to hike campaigners’ legal

costs to challenge badger-culling licences was blocked by the High Court. Today,

the Hon. Mr Justice Fordham has handed down a detailed and comprehensive

judgment explaining his reasons for rejecting NE’s application.

NE had applied to increase the limit on adverse legal costs from the standard

£10,000 for NGOs to £20,000 for Wild Justice and £30,000 for Badger Trust. If NE

had won, the legal challenge could have proved too expensive for the groups to

bring. However, the High Court “had no hesitation” in dismissing the application,

meaning a cap of £10,000 will remain in place for each group.

When deciding whether to increase the standard cap of £10,000, a judge must

answer two questions - whether an increase in the level of the caps would make the

case too expensive for the claimant(s) and whether the increased level of the cap is

reasonable on an objective basis, taking into account factors such as the importance

of the claim for the environment, the strength of the case and the situation of the

parties.

On the first question, the judge accepted that the increased cap would force the groups to reluctantly withdraw from the case – a result that would undermine the principle of access to environmental justice. In Wild Justice’s case, the increase would wipe out half the cash in its bank account – for Badger Trust it would compromise its responsibly adopted reserves policy. While NE claimed that it was not its intention to stifle the claim, it refused to be drawn on whether it was required to give reasons for pursuing the cap increases.

On the second question, the judge concluded the increased caps were not reasonable on an objective basis. Having granted the claimants permission to proceed to a substantive hearing, the judge was satisfied their claim was viable. He also remarked that as a “paradigm environmental case” undiluted by “individual economic interests” it is of real importance for the environment.

The group’s reliance on crowdfunding, which raised just over £50,000 in five months,

and all the other arrangements for legal representation put in place were “eminently

reasonable”. The judge saw “nothing to criticise; and indeed nothing which a Court

can appropriately be asked to criticise”.

The judge also recognised that both Wild Justice and Badger Trust should be able to

retain the financial ability not just to take this case – but to take other legal cases in

the future. Effective access to justice for a responsible NGO, he remarked, does not

mean doing a legal case, going bust and having to start up again.

The judge emphasised that the wider rationale of the costs capping regime is to

avoid individuals, community groups or NGOs from being deterred from bringing

legal cases. The reason for this being that “something bigger than all of us is at stake: the environment which we share with each other, and with others, and for which we are responsible”. The judge highlighted the public interest role groups like Wild Justice and Badger Trust play in defending the environment, recognising that this is especially important as the environment cannot defend itself before the court.

Natural England, as an environmental regulator with an annual budget of £350m and

a legal budget of £2.32m per year, must accept that there are practical implications

arising from judicial review cases taken against it, noting that the accountability

arising from such cases “promotes discipline. It exposes unlawfulness. It promotes

public confidence in public authority decision-making”.

Natural England had, the judge observed, spent far too long focusing on the detail of

the groups’ finances and not enough time considering what would be a reasonable

level for the cap, taking into account the various issues and the need to ensure

effective access to justice. In particular, the judge noted that a large part of the 3-

hour hearing was spent closely scrutinising the groups’ accounts, reserves policies,

arrangements for legal teams and for fundraising. He remarked that it would not be a

good thing for environmental justice if that process were to become the norm

because such a courtroom would be a chilling place for responsible environmental

charities considering legal action. Because of this, he said, it was not a coincidence

that he responded so “robustly, straightforwardly and clearly”.

The result is that caps of £10,000 will remain in place for both groups, with a

substantive hearing for the claim itself due to take place on 16 and 17 December

2025.

Background to the case

The legal challenge, brought by wildlife groups Wild Justice and Badger Trust,

opposes the granting of 26 culling licences by Natural England. The 26

supplementary culling licences were granted for between June and November 2024

and allowed farmers to kill Badgers during this period.

This decision to grant the licences was made against the advice of Natural England’s

own scientists, with Badger Trust and Wild Justice contesting that the licences were

granted unlawfully.

The groups argue that the licences were granted to maintain the confidence of the

farming community rather than for the proper purpose of preventing the spread of

disease, which Natural England’s Director of Science had concluded could be

achieved via alternative methods such as a vaccine.

After launching their claim in August 2024, Badger Trust and Wild Justice were

granted permission for the challenge to go ahead in May 2025 following a renewal

hearing.

In August 2025, Natural England applied to the High Court to have the costs caps for

both groups raised. The caps are provided for by the Aarhus Convention and cover all environmental claims - with costs for individual claimants initially capped at £5,000 and costs for NGOs capped at £10,000.

Natural England attempted to argue that Wild Justice and Badger Trust should dip

into cash reserves to fund the legal claim, which both groups argued was not justified

based on their income.

Wild Justice is a not-for-profit organisation run by unpaid directors. Its funds tend to

be spent quickly on daily running costs, campaigning expenses and legal challenges.

The group’s only source of income is donations.

Badger Trust is also not-for-profit, with an unpaid Board of Trustees, and as a small

single species charity, it too relies on donations for its income. Its funds go towards

wages, research, guidance and advice services, grants and support to member

groups, and the running costs of being a registered charity. The Trust maintains a

policy of following Charity Commission Guidance to have 12 months’ expenditure in

reserve to ensure it remains a going concern and all obligations are met should there

be a drop in income.

Rosie Wood, chair of Badger Trust said:

“The win here is for wildlife’s right to live, and the public’s right to know what is being

done in their name - and with their money.

So, foolishly, in trying to stop our case even being heard in their bid to avoid scrutiny,

NE has simply guaranteed the public will now wonder what its top team is trying to

hide. Not great when trust in public institutions and Government is already at a

premium. Another spectacular own goal by Natural England’s current leadership,

which will do little to improve the crumbling morale of its dedicated and hardworking

staff.”

Chris Packham, Co-Director of Wild Justice said:

“This case was not about Badgers, or Natural England or Wild Justice and the

Badger Trust - it was about democracy. About all of our fundamental rights to

environmental justice. It was a calculated and sly attempt to scare grass-roots and

greater groups away from seeking legal means to protect the natural world. The

unscientific, unethical, uneconomical, cruel and divisive cull was no more than a side

show. This was Natural England’s darkest day, acting as an organ of

authoritarianism to rob us of freedom. They lost. Fairness and justice won. Hoorah!”

Dr Ruth Tingay, Co-Director of Wild Justice said:

“The Honourable Mr Justice Fordham’s judgement was reassuringly withering of

Natural England, and deservedly so. We could claim for a full reimbursement of the

costs we incurred by having to defend against such intimidatory tactics, but to my

mind that would make us as unprincipled and disreputable as Natural England.

Instead, we have stuck to the principle of the Aarhus Convention and will not claim

beyond the costs cap, mainly to protect other environmental groups whose future

legal challenges may have been compromised by any precedent set by our case”.

Bob Elliot, CEO of Wild Justice said:

“This is a huge win for fairness and for the environment. Natural England tried to

price us out of justice, but the Court has made it clear that environmental law isn’t

just for the rich. The judgment upholds the spirit of the Aarhus Convention, which the

Government seems increasingly willing to undermine. This ruling means we can

continue that work and we’ll now focus on the full hearing in December, where the

legality of the badger culling licences themselves will finally be tested.”

Wild Justice and Badger Trust Are represented by Ricardo Gama, Carol Day

and Julia Eriksen at Leigh Day.

Leigh Day Solicitor Carol Day said:

“The judgment in this case is not only a decisive win for our clients, it sends a strong

message to everyone about how the costs capping scheme was intended to operate.

It is not about the court poring over the detailed accounts of modestly funded NGOs

– it’s about ensuring that responsibly placed individuals and NGOs can bring viable

environmental cases without fear of being priced out of court.”