R (on the application of) Friends of the Earth

R (on the application of) Friends of the Earth
Name	R (on the application of) Friends of the Earth
Court	Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full name	R (on the application of) Friends of the Earth Limited v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Date decided	2021
Citations	[2021] UKSC 28
Judges	Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin
Keywords	Climate change litigation, Carbon budget, Paris Agreement, Human Rights Act 1998

R (on the application of) Friends of the Earth

R (on the application of) Friends of the Earth is a judicial review challenge brought by Friends of the Earth against the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy concerning the compatibility of the United Kingdom's carbon budget policy with national and international commitments such as the Paris Agreement and obligations under domestic legislation. The case engaged constitutional institutions including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, executive departments like the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and environmental NGOs including Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland and drew attention from actors such as ClientEarth, Greenpeace, and Extinction Rebellion.

Background and parties

The claimant, Friends of the Earth, an environmental advocacy organization with historical links to groups like Greenpeace and Sierra Club, brought the application against the defendant, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, representing the United Kingdom government and ministers responsible for implementing statutory instruments under the Climate Change Act 2008 and setting five-yearly carbon budget targets. Interested parties included ClientEarth as intervenor, academic institutions such as University of Cambridge and think tanks like Institute for Public Policy Research and Policy Exchange offering submissions, while parliamentary actors including members of Parliament and committees such as the Environmental Audit Committee provided political context.

Facts and procedural history

Friends of the Earth sought judicial review of the fourth carbon budget and associated policy documents promulgated by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, challenging compliance with the Climate Change Act 2008 and alignment with international instruments including the Paris Agreement and obligations interpreted in light of cases such as R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and R (on the application of ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The claim proceeded through the Administrative Court and the Court of Appeal, with interlocutory hearings involving evidence from bodies such as the Committee on Climate Change and experts from Imperial College London and London School of Economics, before reaching the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for final determination.

Legal issues and arguments

Central legal issues included whether the Secretary of State had lawfully prepared and justified the carbon budget in accordance with statutory duties under the Climate Change Act 2008, whether international agreements like the Paris Agreement created interpretive obligations, and whether human rights instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 informed the statutory interpretation. Friends of the Earth argued that the policy failed to reflect commitments to limit global temperature rise endorsed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conferences including COP21 in Paris and that ministers had breached duties similar to those addressed in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union by not providing adequate reasoning. The defendant relied on precedents including R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and administrative law principles from cases such as Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service to defend discretionary policymaking.

Decision of the court

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom dismissed parts of Friends of the Earth's challenges while affirming the general permissibility of ministerial discretion in setting carbon budgets consistent with the framework of the Climate Change Act 2008. The court endorsed that courts should show deference to technical assessments from bodies like the Committee on Climate Change and recognized limits to judicial review established in cases such as R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission. The judgment clarified the obligations of the Secretary of State to give reasons and take into account statutory criteria but did not require adherence to Paris Agreement targets as directly enforceable domestic law.

Legal reasoning and precedent

The court applied principles from landmark decisions including R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission, and Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service to delineate the boundary between political judgment and judicial oversight. It emphasized the role of expert advisory bodies such as the Committee on Climate Change and considered comparative jurisprudence from jurisdictions including Netherlands cases like State of the Netherlands v Urgenda Foundation and United States litigation exemplified by Juliana v. United States. The judgment engaged statutory interpretation techniques drawing on precedents from Pepper v Hart and principles of legitimacy traced through constitutional authorities such as House of Lords and its successor, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Impact and significance

The decision influenced subsequent climate governance debates among actors including United Nations, European Union, and domestic institutions like the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, affecting policy formulation by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and practice of NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth. It clarified the scope of judicial review in environmental matters, guiding litigation strategies across jurisdictions influenced by cases like Urgenda and shaping academic commentary from scholars at University of Oxford, University College London, and think tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research.

Subsequent developments and related cases

Following the judgment, related proceedings and policy reviews involved parties like ClientEarth pursuing further challenges, legislative responses within the United Kingdom Parliament, and renewed attention to international litigation trends including Milieudefensie v Royal Dutch Shell and cases inspired by Urgenda. Academic and civil society responses engaged institutions including London School of Economics and University of Cambridge to evaluate impacts on the evolving field of climate change litigation, with governments and courts in jurisdictions such as Netherlands, United States, and Canada monitoring comparative outcomes.

Category:United Kingdom environmental law cases Category:Climate change litigation