Jet Zero Strategy ruled lawful by High Court
Cornerstone Climate, Planning and Environment, Public Law and Judicial Review
The Government’s policy for achieving Net Zero Aviation by 2050 has been ruled lawful by the High Court today. The decision follows a 4-day rolled-up judicial review hearing in April, involving three separate claims to the ‘Jet Zero Strategy’ brought by two claimants – GALBA and Possible, both of whom sought permission to appeal the Court’s ruling.
Focus on Consultation Process
A central issue in all three claims was the lawfulness of the Government’s consultation exercise undertaken to inform the Jet Zero Strategy. The judgment is therefore of wider public law relevance, particularly in relation to whether a consultation is taken at a formative stage, whether information must be provided about discarded policy options, and whether a decision-maker is required to keep an open mind in relation to such excluded options.
Demand Management Not Required in Consultation
In the present case, Lang J ruled that the consultation on the Jet Zero Strategy was not a consultation on aviation decarbonisation generally; rather it was concerned with achieving net zero consistently with the objective of not directly restricting aviation demand [130].
On the separate question of whether fairness nonetheless required some information about the excluded option of demand management, the Judge considered that “it may have been preferable to have included a few lines in the consultation document” explaining why demand management had been ruled out despite contrary advice from the Climate Change Committee.
However, she held that this was “not a sufficient basis upon which to find that the entire consultation was unlawful” [133]. Notwithstanding that consultee responses on demand management had not then been put before the ministers, the Judge concluded that a conscientious consideration of responses had taken place because there was no obligation on the Secretary of State to reconsider his view on demand management [134].
Additional Challenges Rejected
The Judge rejected GALBA’s other grounds of challenge, which were concerned with the Public Sector Equality Duty; a failure to carry out a cost-benefit analysis; and a failure to take into account relevant planning decisions on airport expansion – which, if considered, would have revealed the dangerous gap in accountability created by the Jet Zero Strategy.
Estelle Dehon KC and Ruchi Parekh represented GALBA (Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport), instructed by Ricky Gama and Madeeha Akhtar at Leigh Day.
