UK Legal Cases and Council Actions – significance and how to use them.
Phiremedical.org – Educational Health Care Plan awarded to school girl with EHS.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62f3997ed3bf7f5c11330ea3/ua-2022-000328-hs__002_.pdf
Summary: An Upper Tribunal decision has confirmed that Electro-Sensitivity (also known as Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity) can amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010. In this case, an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) was upheld on that basis, establishing that exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can substantially limit normal day-to-day activities and trigger disabling symptoms.
As an Upper Tribunal decision, this has High Court status and is binding on the First-tier Tribunal and persuasive on other public authorities, including local councils, when exercising statutory functions. It therefore provides authoritative recognition that persons with EHS are protected under the Equality Act and that public bodies have duties to make reasonable adjustments and to avoid discrimination arising from EMF exposure.
Useful in this format for an objection:
Springgay v. Brighton – Planning Judicial Review – Council lost – concession stamped by High court.
The case concerns the installation of a 15 metre 5G telecommunications mast 27m from a school, and ancillary cabinets on land south of 91 Fishersgate Terrace, Portslade. It was conceded before court.
Costs of £13k were awarded against Brighton and Hove City council in Nov 2021 when they failed to address the health impacts of a proposed mast and to obtain adequate evidence of the assessment of the proximity of the mast to the school and the amended proposal. (Consent order 4/11/2021). Ref BH2021/01639.
Summary: https://rfinfo.co.uk/fishersgate-mast-in-brighton-quashed-at-judicial-review/
Useful takeaway : we are looking for transparency about exclusion zones, they are still withheld even when a property is within a notional 25-50m EZ (between 4 and 9m drop from antenna midline). We argue that the ICNIRP conformity certificates should not be accepted by councils where breaches seem self evident and evaluations are not forthcoming.
A High Court sealed consent or concession is not precedent but can be cited as an accepted legal position. This case indicates to the Council that they have a duty to assess evidence relating to proximity, and the costs awarded has also made other councils wary of falling foul as well.
Action Against 5G – 2023 Angell, Rock and Churchill Versus the Dept of Health, Judicial Review against governments failure to risk assess vulnerable groups, case included evidence of multiple people’s radiation ‘burns’ symptoms in London and expert reports about the inadequacy of the ICNIRP guideline to protect children and those with EHS. The case proceeded on reduced grounds regarding the duty to inform the public and the duty to monitor exposures.
Summary: the court refused to insist that the government carry out a risk assessment beyond adopting the ICNIRP guidelines regarding exposure of children and vulnerable groups to environmental EMFs, even when presented with evidence of possible radiation burns at a site in London.
The scientific evidence was not considered by the court but we feel this is relevant to the risk evaluation that the Councils have to undertake as their duty to ‘make public health imperative’ when deciding whether to set a health condition under EECC annex 13b, and after risk reconciling according to recitals 105 and 106.
IOW – Planning judicial review. The barrister is now under official complaint
Summary? Link to case.
RRR – Objectors Rights and the EECC. McDougall and another (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and another (Respondents)
https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0071
Thomas V Cheltenham. The application of Thomas (Appellant) v Cheltenham Borough Council (Respondent)
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0066
Supreme Court rejects two related 5G Regulation Cases
This is a clear breach of human rights — and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is now the only place left where the truth might be acknowledged.
In both the Right, Regulations, Remedies Case (N McDougall & K Churchill V Dept of Health, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), Dept of Science & Innovation and Technology – Case UKSC/2025/0071 &Thomas V Cheltenham UKSC/2025/0066 the government and the courts have:
- Denied us a fair and public hearing (Article 6)
- Ignored health impacts on our homes and private lives (Article 8)
- Blocked access to and scrutiny of risk information (Article 10)
- Left us without any effective remedy (Article 13)
The government still has one last chance to act. Under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the government have until June 2026 to put existing EECC public-health duties into effect. We are calling on them to use those powers now to resolve the conflict between Court of Appeal rulings — in Thomas v Cheltenham, the EECC was ruled part of UK law; in our case, it was ruled “not part of English law.”
Until they do, we will press ahead with our ECHR application.
V. Lyrae v. Somerset Council
Summary. Claimant needs to be housed somewhere with low EMFs due to her MCS and EHS, but the council argue that she is not entitled to an assessment because ‘EHS does not exist’.
Useful takeaway ?
N McDougall & Karen Churchill – Court of European Rights
Summary. Useful takeaway . Longer blog here
Planning Inspectorate Rulings
Council Refusal on Health Grounds (Mendip)
Summary. Useful takeaway , case link
Below that a heading.. And a list of blogs… and templates
How to Best Use the rulings when generally campaigning or objecting to masts to your advantage
What is a Planning Judicial Review ?
Exclusion zones – the MBNL document and the 500m Setback evidence
How the ‘Counter Orthodox’ arguments give you strength when informing the councillors – pressing for lawful decision making precisely is powerful
Breaking the grip of ICNIRP
Caution – Beware of over generalising the wins and losses
Microwave hearing exposure limit – Report exposures greater than 4.34 V/m by filing a statutory nuisance complaint.
Report your tinnitus with medical report and ask for council to ensure their decision making accounts for this limit when siting small cells and masts.