Expert comment: Legal judgement on Heathrow 'no great surprise' but building more capacity 'stranded in pre-Covid era'
16 December 2020
Environmental and Climate lawyer Professor Chris Hilson, of the School of Law, University of Reading describes the case of R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) (Respondents) v Heathrow Airport Ltd (Appellant) UKSC 2020/0042, on which the UK Supreme Court released its judgment today:
“The Supreme Court’s judgment was about whether the Government’s planning framework governing the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport was unlawful for ignoring the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, including its own policy on the Agreement. Today’s ruling states that what amounts to government ‘policy’ has to be construed narrowly – and that it doesn’t include vague statements by Ministers about the Paris Agreement. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Secretary of State did take into account the Paris Agreement anyway, albeit indirectly via the targets in the UK Climate Change Act, which the independent Committee on Climate Change had advised were compatible with Paris.”
Commenting on the ruling, Professor Hilson observes:
“In many ways this judgment comes as no great surprise legally. It follows a doctrinally conservative administrative law path rather than a creative climate law one. In that respect it is probably well timed given the current independent review of judicial review commissioned by the Government. However, in terms of the outcome and whether a third runway should in the end be built, one might compare it to the Government’s current coronavirus Christmas advice: just because something is lawful doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to go ahead with it. Aviation emissions are a significant contributor to climate change and represent one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise in the limited time we have left to act. Building even more airport capacity goes in the opposite direction to what is needed and seems like thinking stranded in a pre-Covid era.”