PLAN B. EARTH (R on the application of) v THE PRIME MINISTER

Statutory duties to prepare climate policies and lay adaptation programmes do not impose a duty to achieve every asserted policy outcome. Disagreement with the merits of those policies does not itself establish unlawfulness. Where Parliament has created an evolving statutory framework, supported by independent expert advice and political accountability, the court will not substitute its assessment for that of government on complex economic and social choices unless the decision is manifestly without reasonable foundation. Unincorporated treaties cannot be enforced directly in domestic proceedings. Climate-change claims under Articles 2 and 8 also require an arguable failure in the protective framework, sufficient individual impact, and—where relevant—victim status and protected family life.

The claimants sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging UK Government climate policies. They alleged breaches of sections 13 and 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, Articles 2, 8 and 14 of the Convention, and commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Permission had been refused on the papers by Cavanagh J. On renewal, the court reconsidered the statutory, treaty and human-rights grounds, including claims concerning emissions, adaptation, financial flows, compensation and family members living overseas.

1. Outcome. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on all grounds. The decision was based on the substantive lack of an arguable claim, not merely on procedural defects.
2. Climate Change Act 2008. Sections 13 and 58 require the Secretary of State to prepare proposals, policies and programmes of the specified kinds. They do not, on their face, require the achievement of every asserted policy outcome. The Secretary of State had complied with those procedural and policy-making duties. Disagreement with the merits or sufficiency of the policies did not make breach arguable.
3. The statutory framework deliberately gives the Committee on Climate Change an advisory and monitoring role. Its critical reports, and the Government’s continuing responses and policy development, were consistent with the statutory scheme rather than evidence of non-compliance. The court was not a suitable forum to determine the merits of competing climate policies.
4. Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement was unincorporated and could not be enforced directly in domestic law. Treating compliance with its temperature limit as the legal test for Articles 2 or 8 would effectively require the court to enforce the treaty.
5. Articles 2 and 8: direct climate effects. The existence of the statutory and policy framework defeated the argument that the State had failed to provide an effective protective framework. The issues involved complex economic and social judgments attracting a wide margin of appreciation. The claims concerning financial flows and compensation added nothing arguable.
6. Family life and discrimination. Article 8 may impose positive obligations and may apply to environmental harm, but the evidence did not arguably establish significant impairment of protected family life. Relationships with adult relatives overseas ordinarily required additional dependency beyond normal emotional ties. The claimants also lacked sufficient evidence of relevant family life in the United Kingdom or exceptional circumstances justifying extraterritorial application. The Article 14 claims therefore failed with the Article 8 claims.
7. The court further held, alternatively, that the claimants could not arguably establish the required victim status under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The defendants were awarded costs summarily assessed at £20,000, subject to any written submissions on quantum.

• High Court (Administrative Court). Cavanagh J refused permission on the papers on 29 September 2021. On renewal, Bourne J reconsidered the issues afresh and again refused permission on all grounds.