Friends of the Earth & Ors v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
[2024] EWHC 995 (Admin)
Friends of the Earth & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
25 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin)
High Court
Three people sued the UK government, claiming its climate change adaptation plan (NAP3) was illegal. They argued it was too vague, didn't consider if its plans would work, and didn't consider equality issues. The court decided the government's plan was legal, even though it wasn't perfect. The court said the government has some flexibility in making these plans and that the problems with equality were later fixed.
Key Facts
- •Challenge to the legality of the third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3) under the Climate Change Act 2008.
- •Claimants: Friends of the Earth, Kevin Jordan (whose home was demolished due to coastal erosion), and Doug Paulley (wheelchair user vulnerable to extreme heat).
- •Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
- •Grounds of challenge: Misconstruing the requirement for "objectives" in s. 58(1)(a) CCA; unlawfully failing to consider delivery risks; unlawfully failing to discharge the public sector equality duty (PSED); and breaching Articles 2, 8, 14, and A1P1 ECHR.
- •Relevant case law: R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin), Friends of the Earth v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWHC 995 (Admin), R (Plan B Earth) v Prime Minister [2021] EWHC 3469 (Admin), Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweis v Switzerland, App. No. 53600/20 (VKS).
Legal Principles
Interpretation of s. 58 CCA regarding "objectives" for climate change adaptation.
Climate Change Act 2008, s. 58
Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under s. 149 Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, s. 149
Positive obligations under Articles 2, 8, 14, and A1P1 ECHR.
European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 2, 8, 14, and Article 1 of Protocol 1
Victim requirement under Article 34 ECHR (as clarified in VKS).
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweis v Switzerland, App. No. 53600/20
Principles for assessing compliance with the PSED, including the need for timely consideration and rigorous assessment.
R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345
Section 31(2A) and (3C) Senior Courts Act 1981 – refusal of relief if outcome would not have been substantially different.
Senior Courts Act 1981, s. 31(2A), (3C)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed on Grounds 1, 2, and 4.
The court found that the defendant's interpretation of s. 58 CCA was within the margin of appreciation under the ECHR; that delivery risk was considered rationally; and that the claimants lacked standing under the ECHR.
Permission to apply for judicial review refused on Ground 3.
While the PSED was not initially discharged, the subsequent EQIA2 and the Secretary of State's consideration of it meant that the outcome would likely have been the same, thus triggering s. 31 SCA 1981.
Similar Cases
Wildfish Conservation, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2285 (Admin)
Greenpeace Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2608 (Admin)
Mair Bain v Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWHC 2216 (Admin)
Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWCA Civ 145