Dr Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Dr Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

The Secretary of State lawfully concluded that the scheme’s greenhouse gas emissions were a significant adverse effect for EIA purposes based on EN-1, not the IEMA Guidance, and gave adequate reasons for her conclusions. There was no inconsistency or demonstrable flaw in the reasoning. The assessment of need and the weight given to it were lawfully undertaken in accordance with EN-1 and ClientEarth. Grounds One and Two were arguable but fail on the merits; Ground Four was unarguable.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Andrew Boswell; Defendant: Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; Interested Party: Net Zero Teesside Power Limited; Interested Party: Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; permission granted on Grounds One and Two, refused on Ground Four.
Legal Topics
Development Consent Orders, Environmental Impact Assessment, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, National Policy Statements, Carbon Capture and Storage, Judicial Review Procedure
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Development Consent Orders Environmental Impact Assessment Greenhouse Gas Emissions National Policy Statements Carbon Capture and Storage +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Andrew Boswell

Claimant

Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Defendant

Net Zero Teesside Power Limited

Interested Party

Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State gave legally adequate reasons for concluding the development would help deliver the Government’s net zero commitment despite finding significant adverse greenhouse gas emissions
  2. 2 Whether there was a demonstrable flaw or inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s reasoning regarding the significance of GHG emissions under the EIA Regulations and the policy support for the scheme
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State misinterpreted or misapplied National Policy Statement EN-1 in assessing significance for EIA purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State lawfully concluded that the scheme’s greenhouse gas emissions were a significant adverse effect for EIA purposes based on EN-1, not the IEMA Guidance, and gave adequate reasons for her conclusions. There was no inconsistency or demonstrable flaw in the reasoning. The assessment of need and the weight given to it were lawfully undertaken in accordance with EN-1 and ClientEarth. Grounds One and Two were arguable but fail on the merits; Ground Four was unarguable.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; permission granted on Grounds One and Two, refused on Ground Four.

Orders

  • Grounds One and Two: Permission granted but claim dismissed on the merits.
  • Ground Four: Permission refused.