Possible (The 10:10 Foundation), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

The claimants sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s publication of the Jet Zero Strategy (JZS) (19 July 2022) and the Secretary of State’s 2023 Review of that strategy. Central complaints were that the Defendant had unlawfully excluded Direct Demand Management (DDM) measures from the JZS, had failed the Tameside duty of inquiry, had conducted an unfair consultation, had failed to take into account non-CO2 impacts, had not given adequate reasons for departing from official advice, had breached the public sector equality duty (section 149 Equality Act 2010) and had failed to undertake required impact assessment work.

The court applied established public law principles: the Tameside duty of reasonable inquiry; the Wednesbury/irrationality test; the common-law duties on consultation (including Moseley and Gunning guidance); and the requirements of the PSED. It also applied the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Global Feedback on the scope of the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA 2008) duties.

• The court held that section 13 CCA 2008 duties did not apply to the JZS in the way the claimants asserted, in light of Global Feedback.
• The Defendant lawfully adopted and consulted on a technology-led strategy that expressly excluded DDM; that consultation was not unfair in law because it legitimately limited the scope of consultation to the chosen strategy and consultees were able to comment and did comment on alternative approaches.
• The Defendant had taken reasonable steps to inquire into delivery risks, non-CO2 effects and airport expansion; the decision to exclude DDM was not irrational and adequate consideration was given to non-CO2 uncertainty.
• The PSED was addressed through an equality analysis; any drafting error in a consultation summary did not mean the Secretary of State was misled or that the PSED was breached.
• Impact assessment obligations were not required at strategy stage because the JZS did not impose regulatory requirements on business that would trigger a full cost-benefit regulatory impact assessment.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted but, on the merits, the claims were dismissed for the reasons above.

Background and parties: The claimants were Possible (The 10:10 Foundation) and the Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA). They challenged the Secretary of State for Transport’s Jet Zero Strategy (JZS) published 19 July 2022 and a 2023 Review that maintained the JZS. The JZS set out a technology-led pathway for decarbonising UK aviation by 2050 and expressly excluded DDM measures. The claimants alleged multiple public law errors including failures of inquiry (Tameside), unlawful consultation, irrational exclusion of DDM, failure to address non-CO2 impacts, failure to give reasons, omission of an impact assessment and breach of the PSED (section 149 Equality Act 2010).

Procedural posture: The claims were case-managed to a rolled-up hearing. Some grounds were not pursued in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Global Feedback; other grounds were amended or added with permission. The judgment grants permission to proceed but ultimately dismisses all substantive claims.

Nature of relief sought: Judicial review of the lawfulness of the JZS decision and the 2023 Review decision; consequential relief was sought (quashing/remedial declarations and associated relief) but the court decided issues on law and fact without granting substantive remedies.

Issues framed by the court: (i) whether CCA 2008 duties (section 13) required different or additional inquiry and consideration in preparation of the JZS; (ii) whether the consultation was unfair because DDM had been excluded prior to consultation; (iii) whether the Secretary of State breached the Tameside duty or acted irrationally in rejecting DDM and in maintaining the High Ambition scenario; (iv) whether non-CO2 impacts required different treatment or were an obviously material consideration; (v) whether the PSED was breached; (vi) whether an impact assessment was required; and (vii) whether the 2023 Review required fresh consultation or additional inquiries.

Court’s reasoning, briefly:

• On the CCA 2008: following Global Feedback, the court held that the section 13 duty is the responsibility of the Secretary of State with economy-wide responsibility (now SSESNZ) and does not convert departmental sector strategies into statutorily constrained section 13 preparations; the JZS was therefore not subject to the section 13 obligations pleaded by Possible.
• On consultation: the JZS consultation openly presented a technology-led option that did not propose DDM; the court applied the Moseley/Gunning principles and concluded the scope of consultation was lawful. The Secretary of State was entitled to consult on the preferred strategy and to exclude alternative strategies from that consultation provided consultees could still make submissions (which they did) and those submissions were conscientiously considered.
• On Tameside and irrationality: the court concluded that reasonable inquiry had been made into deliverability, modelling and the CCC advice; officials’ analyses, updates and literature reviews provided a rational basis for the Defendant’s judgment that DDM need not be included in the strategy and for maintaining the High Ambition scenario in 2023.
• On non-CO2 impacts: scientific uncertainty about quantification and metrics meant it was not irrational to treat non-CO2 effects as an area for further research and monitoring rather than to make DDM obligatory; DDM was not the only plausible mitigation.
• On PSED: an equality analysis was prepared, revised and put before ministers; the court accepted that the Secretary of State had due regard and that a drafting error in the consultation summary did not amount to a breach.
• On impact assessment: the Better Regulation Framework requires impact assessments for regulatory provisions imposing binding obligations on business; the JZS was an overarching strategy and did not itself impose such regulatory burdens, so no regulatory impact assessment was required at that stage.
• On the 2023 Review: there was no legal duty to re-consult; officials’ literature review and modelling provided a rational basis to conclude no further DDM policy development was needed at that time.

Result and wider comment: Permission to apply for judicial review was granted but all substantive grounds were dismissed. The judgment underscores the limits of judicial intervention in high‑level policy choices where the decision‑maker has taken considered, evidenced steps, and where statutory duties under the Climate Change Act do not extend to sectoral strategies prepared outside the SSESNZ’s section 13 process.

The court granted permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed all substantive grounds. The claimant’s central arguments — that the JZS and the 2023 Review unlawfully excluded Direct Demand Management, breached the Tameside duty, failed the consultation and the public sector equality duty, and omitted required impact assessment — were rejected. The court relied on Global Feedback to reject the argument that section 13 CCA 2008 obligations applied to the JZS in the manner alleged, found the consultation lawful in scope, concluded that inquiries into delivery risk, non-CO2 effects and airport expansion were reasonable, and held that the PSED and impact-assessment requirements were met or not engaged at strategy stage.

The judgment records the pre‑trial procedural history: Possible Claim 1 was issued 18 October 2022 and Possible Claim 2 issued 31 January 2024; Sir Duncan Ouseley on 14 March 2023 refused permission on some grounds and ordered roll-up case management with the GALBA claim; the proceedings were stayed pending the Court of Appeal/Supreme Court consideration of Global Feedback. On 15 July 2024 and 17 March 2025 there were further case management and permission decisions (including leave to amend). The substantive hearing took place 1–4 April 2025 and judgment was handed down 8 May 2025. Neutral citations of related authorities relied upon in the judgment include R (Global Feedback Limited) v SSEFRA & SSESNZ [2024] 1 WLR 2923 and other reported High Court authorities cited in the text.