Gatwick Airport Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

Under section 14 of Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the Secretary of State must address whether replacing assimilated law increases the regulatory burden. An optional slot hand-back mechanism can be a voluntary scheme even within a compulsory allocation regime. Direct compliance and administration costs count as regulatory burdens; indirect commercial losses caused by airlines’ choices do not. The minister may be inferred to have considered the statutory condition from documents placed squarely before her, absent contrary evidence. Consultation fairness is context-specific. Urgency, informed consultees and a limited measure may justify a compressed process. A claim affecting third-party rights must be brought promptly, potentially within days. A late equality-duty amendment may be refused where it causes unfairness and delay and identifies no arguable protected-characteristic impact.

Gatwick, the operator of Gatwick Airport, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to make the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026. The Regulations temporarily allowed airlines to return up to 10% of allocated slots for the 2026 summer and winter seasons without prejudicing future slot rights.

Gatwick alleged that the Secretary of State lacked power under section 14 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, conducted an unfair consultation, and breached the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The equality ground was introduced by a late application to amend. A rolled-up hearing considered permission and, if appropriate, the substantive claim.

Disposition. Permission was granted on the regulatory-burden and consultation grounds, but judicial review was refused and the claim was dismissed. Permission to amend the claim to add the equality-duty ground was refused.

1. Time. The requirement under rule 54.5(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 is context-specific. Where relief may affect acquired third-party rights, a claim may need to be issued within days. A consultation challenge ordinarily runs from the final substantive decision where the consultation itself has no legal consequences and defects could still be cured. The approach in R (Draper) v Lincolnshire County Council [2015] EWHC 2694 (Admin) was special to its facts. Applying R (Amey) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 3132 (Admin), the claim was in time.
2. Regulatory burden. Section 14(5) imposed a subjective but reviewable condition precedent. Section 14(6) created an objective rule that a voluntary scheme was not to be regarded as increasing the regulatory burden. The hand-back mechanism was voluntary even though it operated within the mandatory slot-allocation regime. The relevant focus was the effect of the new provisions, not the wider Slots Regulation. Direct administrative costs and burdens arising from compliance could count. Indirect commercial losses suffered by an airport because airlines chose to return slots were not regulatory burdens.
3. The Secretary of State had to address the statutory condition personally and consciously. It was permissible to infer that she had done so from the ministerial submission, draft Regulations and impact material placed squarely before her, in the absence of contrary evidence. The Regulations reduced the regulatory burden on airlines. Any increased administrative burden on the coordinator was minor, and Gatwick’s consequential revenue loss was irrelevant to the statutory assessment. The conclusion was therefore rational.
4. Consultation. The Gunning criteria required consultation at a formative stage, sufficient information, adequate time and conscientious consideration of responses: R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168. Their application was intensely context-specific. The four-day consultation was short, but the urgency, technical subject matter, specialist consultees, limited duration and effect of the proposal, substantial response and subsequent removal of the proposed reallocation prohibition meant that the process was not unlawful.
5. Equality amendment. The application made two days before the hearing was unjust and disproportionate after the parties had complied with directions. It caused expense, unfairness and possible delay and gave no good reason for the late pleading. In any event, the proposed ground identified no arguable protected-characteristic impact, and the evidence did not show that the Department’s equality assessment was irrational.

The claim was issued on 17 June 2026. Interim-relief directions were made by Garnham J and Chamberlain J; the interim-relief application was later withdrawn and the matter proceeded to a rolled-up hearing. No appeal from an earlier decision is stated.