High Court dismisses challenge over Government climate change plan
The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge of the Government's plan to adapt to the impacts of climate change, known as the Third National Adaptation Programme (NAP3).
In Friends of the Earth & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin), Mr Justice Chamberlain granted permission for three grounds but ultimately dismissed the claim.
The case was brought against the Secretary of State for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs by campaign group Friends of the Earth alongside Kevin Jordan, who lost his home to coastal erosion, and Doug Paulley, who is a wheelchair user who is susceptible to overheating during heatwaves.
NAP3 was laid and published pursuant to section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008 in July 2023.
It details how the Government will protect the natural environment, support businesses in adapting to climate change, and sets out plans for adapting infrastructure and protecting buildings and their surroundings.
It also looks at protecting public health and communities and mitigating international impact on the UK.
In March 2024, the Climate Change Committee issued an independent assessment of NAP3, which concluded the plan "falls short of what is needed" and called for an urgent refresh of NAP3 in the new Parliament.
It said that the documents lacked "the pace and ambition" to address growing climate risks.
The three claimants also believe that NAP3 takes the wrong approach.
Their claim was heard in a rolled-up hearing in July 2024, and the judge handed down his judgment this month (October 2024).
The court considered the following four grounds:
- Ground 1: Did the defendant misdirect himself in law in respect of what was required of him by way of "objectives" under section 58(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008?
- Ground 2: Was the defendant required to consider the risk of delivery of the policies and proposals set out in NAP3?
- Ground 3: Public Sector Equality Duty
a. Issue 1: Did the defendant comply with his obligations under the PSED under section 149 Equality Act 2010 in relation to the publication of NAP3?
b. Issue 2: Should the Court refuse relief pursuant to section 31(2A) and/or (3C) of the Senior Courts Act 1981?
- Ground 4: HRA
a. Issue 1: Is it open to the defendant to contend that the second and third Claimants are not "victims" for the purposes of section 7 Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)?
b. Issue 2: Is the second claimant permitted to rely upon the Second Statement of Kevin Jordan dated 10 June 2024 and, if so, should the second claimant's assertion of the fact that "Kevin Jordan's home was recently demolished due to the treat of coastal erosion" be excluded from consideration?
c. Issue 3: Are the second and third claimants "victims" for the purposes of s. 7 HRA?
d. Issue 4: Are the rights relied upon by the claimants (Article 2, 8, 14 and A1P1 European Convention on Human Rights) applicable/engaged?
e. Issue 5: Did the defendant breach any of those Convention rights in adopting NAP3?
The judge granted permission for grounds 1, 2 and 4 but dismissed the claim. He refused permission for ground 3.
Friends of the Earth has said it is considering the judgement and its appeal options.
Adam Carey
