Friends of the Earth: ‘Government Policy’, Relevant Considerations and Human Rights

Abstract

Litigation involving climate change is on the increase both domestically and internationally and the Supreme Court's judgment in Friends of the Earth Ltd joins that list. While it was not as directly concerned with the implications of climate change as, perhaps, recent case law from the Netherlands or Australia, the case has significant implications including in terms of future litigation involving human rights challenges based on climate change. Three aspects of the judgment in particular warrant consideration. First, the legitimacy of the Court's purposive interpretation of the meaning of ‘Government policy’. Second, the Supreme Court left unanswered the question of whether the Paris Agreement was so ‘obviously material’ to the exercise of the relevant discretion that a failure to have regard to it would be Wednesbury unreasonable. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that designating the Airports National Policy Statement would interfere with any rights contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. This case analysis examines each of these aspects of the judgment.