press release

R(Packham) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and Secretary of State for Transport (challenge to the ‘new approach to Net Zero’) - press release

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

Filing Year For Action

On September 20, 2023, the Prime Minister gave a speech setting out his ‘new approach to Net Zero’. The accompanying press release stated that due to the “UK’s over-delivery on reducing emissions” there was “space to take a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach to reaching net zero...”. A number of policy changes were announced. The 2030 ban on the sale of petrol and diesel cars was delayed to 2035. Policies requiring landlords to upgrade the energy efficiency of their properties were dropped. And the ban on new fossil fuel boilers for certain households was delayed.
On December 1, 2023, environmentalist and TV personality Chris Packham announced a public law challenge to these decisions. The grounds of claim are:
• The obligation under Section 13 Climate Change Act 2008 to have proposals and policies to meet carbon budgets is continuing and the proposals and policies must be current. If they are altered, there must always be plans in place to meet the budgets. The secretaries of state breached this obligation.
• There was a failure to take into account considerations listed under Section 10 of the Climate Change Act, such as the risk to delivery of proposals and policies and to the achievement of the carbon budgets and the 2050 net zero target.
• There was a failure to consult on the changes, particularly a failure to take into account ongoing consultations about off-grid heating and minimum energy efficiency in rental properties
• The decisions were based on misinformation
• There was a breach of the duty to inform the public of the reasons for the decisions to change the policies

On March 4, 2024 it was reported the High Court had granted permission for the first three grounds to proceed to full trial. On the refusal of permission for the final two grounds, Mr Packham would have been entitled to request a permission hearing to challenge that. It is not known whether he has done so, or whether he has opted instead to proceed to trial on the three grounds for which permission was granted.
