- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Woodhouse Investment Pte Ltd and West Cumbria Mini...
Litigation
Woodhouse Investment Pte Ltd and West Cumbria Mining (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Kingdom (ICSID Arbitration)
Date
2024
Geography
International
About this case
Documents
Filing Date
Type
Document
Summary
Summary
The case Woodhouse Investment Pte Ltd and West Cumbria Mining (Holdings) Ltd v. United Kingdom is the first arbitration brought against the UK under the ICSID Convention. The claim was filed on August 8, 2025, under the 1975 UK–Singapore Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The dispute arises from the UK government’s revocation of planning approval for the Woodhouse Colliery, a proposed coking coal mine near Whitehaven in Cumbria.
Planning permission for the project was initially granted in 2022 after a protracted decision-making process. However, in 2024 the UK High Court quashed the approval, finding deficiencies in the government’s assessment. Following this judgment, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities revoked the approval altogether.
The claimants—Woodhouse Investment Pte Ltd, a Singaporean company, and West Cumbria Mining (Holdings) Ltd—allege that these actions breached the UK’s obligations under the BIT. They argue that the revocation and related regulatory measures unlawfully interfered with their investment and denied them protections guaranteed by the treaty, including fair and equitable treatment and protection against unlawful expropriation.
The climate dimension of the case is central. The Woodhouse Colliery would have been the UK’s first new deep coal mine in decades, intended to supply coking coal for the steel industry. The project became highly contested because of its incompatibility with the UK’s legally binding net zero target under the Climate Change Act 2008 and its international commitments under the Paris Agreement. Environmental groups challenged the approval on these grounds, and the High Court quashed the planning consent in part because of inadequate consideration of climate impacts. The arbitration therefore exemplifies the emerging conflict between states’ climate mitigation measures—particularly efforts to restrict fossil fuel projects—and investor protections under international investment agreements.