Drax Power Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Energy And Climate Change [2014] EWCA Civ 1153 (07 August 2014)

Drax Power Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Energy And Climate Change [2014] EWCA Civ 1153 (07 August 2014)

The Court found that DECC's refusal to grant an Investment Contract for Drax Unit 3 was not irrational in the Wednesbury sense. The judge below erred in substituting her own evaluation for that of DECC and failed to accord appropriate deference to the administrative decision-maker. DECC's concerns regarding the sufficiency of Drax's evidence and the viability of the RO alternative were reasonable. Procedural unfairness was not established.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1153
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Drax Power Limited; Defendant/appellant: Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Investment Contracts, Renewable Energy Support, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Energy Law Public Law Judicial Review Investment Contracts Renewable Energy Support Wednesbury Unreasonableness Procedural Fairness

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drax Power Limited

Claimant/respondent

Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DECC's refusal to grant an Investment Contract for Drax Unit 3 was irrational under Wednesbury principles
  2. 2 Whether procedural unfairness occurred in the evaluation of Drax's application

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that DECC's refusal to grant an Investment Contract for Drax Unit 3 was not irrational in the Wednesbury sense. The judge below erred in substituting her own evaluation for that of DECC and failed to accord appropriate deference to the administrative decision-maker. DECC's concerns regarding the sufficiency of Drax's evidence and the viability of the RO alternative were reasonable. Procedural unfairness was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside

Orders

  • The order of Mrs Justice Andrews quashing DECC's decision is set aside.
  • No declaration granted that the Key Criterion is satisfied.