By an order dated 8 May 2024 (and handed down on 13 May 2024), Lords Reed, Leggatt and Richards of the Supreme Court refused Together Against Sizewell C ("TASC") permission to appeal their judicial review claim against the granting of the development consent order ("DCO") for the Sizewell C new nuclear power station, thus marking the final determination of TASC's claim.
TASC had sought permission to appeal the order of the Court of Appeal dated 20 December 2023 dismissing TASC's appeal of the June 2023 decision of Mr Justice Holgate in the High Court which refused TASC permission to bring judicial review of the Secretary of State's grant of the Sizewell C DCO. Please see our previous blog entries on the Court of Appeal and High Court judgments for further information on those decisions.
Of the seven grounds dismissed by Mr Justice Holgate in the High Court, TASC were granted permission by Lord Justice Coulson to appeal two grounds to the Court of Appeal and a 1.5 day hearing took place before Sir Keith Lindblom, Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Lewis in November 2023. By an order dated 20 December 2023, the justices unanimously dismissed both grounds and refused TASC permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
TASC then applied directly to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal in January 2024, claiming that the two grounds dismissed by the Court of Appeal raised arguable points of law of general public importance. The Secretary of State and Sizewell C Limited (as an interested party) both filed notices of objection.
Having considered the matter on the papers, the Supreme Court has now refused permission because "the application does not raise an arguable point of law". This decision marks the final determination of TASC's claim, which was originally filed in August 2022 – over 20 months ago (see below a table outlining the key milestones).
Herbert Smith Freehills has advised Sizewell C Limited, the interested party in the claim, on the Sizewell C project since 2010, having also worked with EDF Energy to secure consent for Sizewell C’s sister project, Hinkley Point C, in 2013. Sizewell C will supply electricity to six million homes and avoid around nine million tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Further details about the project can be found here.
The Herbert Smith Freehills team who advised on the judicial review appeal comprised partner Catherine Howard, of counsel Charlotte Dyer and associate Leon Culot, alongside counsel Hereward Phillpot KC and Hugh Flanagan of Francis Taylor Building.
Charlotte Dyer stated “We are very pleased that the Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal, ending almost two years of ongoing challenge for a project that will play a crucial role in helping the UK to meet its net zero target.”
Key milestones
| HIGH COURT (circa 10 months)
• 30 August 2022 – claim filed by TASC challenging the DCO • 18 October 2022 – Order of Kerr J refusing TASC permission to bring judicial review on the papers • 22/23 March 2023 – rolled up hearing before Holgate J (in relation to permission and the substantive issues of the claim) • 22 June 2023 – judgment of Holgate J is issued, refusing permission to bring judicial review |
| COURT OF APPEAL (circa 6 months)
• 29 June 2023 – TASC apply to the Court of Appeal directly for permission to appeal • 8 September 2023 – Order of Coulson LJ granting permission to appeal on two of the original seven grounds (eight including one dropped prior to the initial hearing) • 1/2 November 2023 – Court of Appeal hears the case • 20 December 2023 – Court of Appeal judgment is issued, upholding Holgate J's judgment and dismissing TASC's appeal |
| SUPREME COURT (circa 4 months)
• 17 January 2024 – TASC files an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court • 13 May 2024 – Supreme Court refuses permission to appeal |
Key contacts
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.