Marks and Spencer PLC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 452 (Admin)
Friends of the Earth & Ors v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
3 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 995 (Admin)
High Court
The government's plan to cut carbon emissions was challenged in court. The judge ruled the plan was flawed because it unrealistically assumed everything would go perfectly, ignoring the risks of delays and failures in individual projects. The judge also said the plan didn't sufficiently explain how it would protect the environment for future generations. However, the judge decided the plan itself was properly presented to Parliament.
Key Facts
- •The case concerns the statutory process for achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 under the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA 2008).
- •Claimants challenged the Secretary of State's Carbon Budget Delivery Plan (CBDP), arguing non-compliance with sections 13 and 14 of the CCA 2008.
- •The CBDP aimed to meet Carbon Budgets 4, 5, and 6 (CB4-CB6), with a focus on CB6 (2033-2037).
- •The Secretary of State's decision relied on quantified and unquantified proposals and policies, with significant reliance on the assumption that all quantified proposals would be delivered in full.
- •The Claimants argued the Secretary of State failed to adequately consider delivery risks, particularly through the absence of individual policy RAG ratings in the briefing materials.
- •The Claimants also challenged the adequacy of the CBDP's information on sustainable development and its compliance with section 14 reporting requirements.
Legal Principles
Section 13(1) of the CCA 2008 requires the Secretary of State to prepare proposals and policies to enable carbon budgets to be met.
Climate Change Act 2008
Section 14(1) of the CCA 2008 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets.
Climate Change Act 2008
Section 13(3) of the CCA 2008 requires that proposals and policies contribute to sustainable development.
Climate Change Act 2008
The Secretary of State must consider risk to the delivery of individual proposals and policies and to the achievement of carbon budgets (Holgate J in FoE (No.1)).
R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2023] 1 WLR 225
Judicial review will assess whether the Secretary of State's decision was irrational (Wednesbury unreasonableness).
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
A section 14 report must enable readers to understand and assess the adequacy of government policy proposals (Holgate J in FoE (No.1)).
R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2023] 1 WLR 225
Outcomes
The application for judicial review is allowed on Grounds 1, 2, 3, and 4.
The Secretary of State's decision was based on an irrational assumption that all quantified proposals would be delivered in full, without adequate consideration of individual policy delivery risks. The assessment of sustainable development also fell short of the statutory requirement.
Ground 5 is dismissed.
The CBDP complied with the Secretary of State's duty under section 14 of the CCA 2008, as it provided sufficient information to Parliament on the proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets. The court did not find an obligation to include granular risk data for individual policies.
Similar Cases
Friends of the Earth & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin)
Greenpeace Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2608 (Admin)
Dr Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
[2024] EWHC 2128 (Admin)
Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWCA Civ 145