Global Feedback Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor

The duty under section 13 of the Climate Change Act 2008 rests on the Secretary of State responsible for the national response to climate change and carbon budgets. It requires a continuing, economy-wide assessment of proposals and policies taken as a whole. A strategy prepared by another department does not become subject to that duty merely because it may reduce emissions, was mentioned in a net zero strategy, or was developed through interdepartmental co-operation.

Section 13 does not require the Secretary of State to consult the Climate Change Committee, give its advice significant weight, or provide cogent reasons for departing from it. Such obligations arise where legislation expressly requires consultation or consideration of expert advice.

Global Feedback Ltd sought judicial review of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ adoption of the Government’s Food Strategy. Permission was refused by the Administrative Court in [2022] EWHC 3269 (Admin), but the Court of Appeal subsequently granted permission and retained the judicial review claim under CPR r 52.8(6).

The claimant argued that the Food Strategy was a proposal or policy within section 13 of the Climate Change Act 2008. It contended that the responsible Secretaries of State had failed to discharge the statutory duty and had failed to give significant weight to the Climate Change Committee’s advice on diet and climate change, or cogent reasons for departing from it.

The central questions were whether section 13 applied to the development and adoption of the Food Strategy and, if so, what legal weight had to be given to the Committee’s advice.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. Section 13 of the Climate Change Act 2008 did not apply to the preparation or adoption of the Food Strategy. The associated issue concerning the Climate Change Committee’s advice therefore did not arise, although the court determined it in the alternative.

2. Part 1 forms a coherent statutory package. Sections 8, 10, 13 and 14 contemplate that one Secretary of State will exercise the national functions relating to carbon budgets. The section 13 duty rests on the Secretary of State responsible for the national response to climate change, formerly the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and subsequently the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The cross-reference in section 14 to current proposals and policies under section 13, and the requirement in section 13(3) to consider proposals and policies taken as a whole, supported that construction.

3. The section 13 duty has three characteristics. It rests on the Secretary of State with primary responsibility for establishing and meeting carbon budgets; it requires a strategic, economy-wide judgment; and it is continuing. The statutory scheme does not divide the duty among departmental Secretaries of State according to sectoral shares of a carbon budget.

4. Other ministers may prepare measures capable of reducing emissions and may assist the responsible Secretary of State through interdepartmental processes. That activity does not itself perform or engage section 13. The references to the Food Strategy in the Net Zero Strategy, its possible contribution to net zero, and co-operation between departments did not transform it into a section 13 proposal or policy. Nor was it a working-out of matters left unfinished by the Net Zero Strategy.

5. In the alternative, section 13 imposed no duty to consult the Climate Change Committee, give its advice significant weight, or provide cogent reasons for departing from it. The Climate Change Act 2008 expressly requires the Committee’s advice to be obtained or considered in other provisions, including sections 7 and 9, but contains no equivalent requirement in section 13. The court would not imply such a duty.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to apply for judicial review was granted under CPR r 52.8, the claim was retained in the Court of Appeal, and the claim was dismissed: [2023] EWCA Civ 1549.
• High Court, Administrative Court: Lang J refused renewed permission to apply for judicial review: [2022] EWHC 3269 (Admin).
• High Court, Administrative Court: Sir Ross Cranston had previously refused permission on the papers.