Hynot Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor

Hynot Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor

Permission for judicial review was refused because none of the grounds advanced by the Claimant met the threshold of arguability. The Secretary of State lawfully and rationally assessed major accidents and disasters, cumulative effects, and complied with consultation and Habitats Regulations duties. The claim was also not brought promptly as required by CPR 54.5(1)(a), and there was no public law error warranting further consideration.

Parties
Claimant: Hynot Limited; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; Second Defendant: Oil and Gas Authority/North Sea Transition Authority; Interested Party: Liverpool Bay CCS Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application (refused)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Carbon Capture and Storage (ccs), Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Habitats Regulations, Judicial Review—promptness, Cumulative Environmental Effects, Public Consultation, Major Accidents and Disasters (mad), Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Carbon Capture and Storage (ccs) Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Habitats Regulations Judicial Review—promptness Cumulative Environmental Effects +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hynot Limited

Claimant

Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

First Defendant

Oil and Gas Authority/North Sea Transition Authority

Second Defendant

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State failed to assess major accidents and disasters (MAD) as required under the EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to carry out lawful public consultation under the EIA Regulations
  3. 3 Whether there was a failure to assess cumulative effects on climate as required under the EIA Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for judicial review was refused because none of the grounds advanced by the Claimant met the threshold of arguability. The Secretary of State lawfully and rationally assessed major accidents and disasters, cumulative effects, and complied with consultation and Habitats Regulations duties. The claim was also not brought promptly as required by CPR 54.5(1)(a), and there was no public law error warranting further consideration.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review refused.