Landmark climate judgment

Surrey County Council accepted an environmental impact assessment (EIA) which assessed only direct releases of greenhouse gases (GHGs) at the site.

The council argued combustion emissions could not as a matter of law be regarded as environmental effects of the project, and the decision of whether the combustion emissions were effects of the project was a matter of evaluative judgement for the council.

By a 3–2 majority decision, however, the Supreme Court held the council’s decision was unlawful, in R (Finch on behalf of Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council & Ors [2024] UKSC 20, [2024] All ER (D) 71 (Jun).

Delivering his judgment, Lord Leggatt said: ‘The EIA Directive does not, as I interpret it, impose obligations which are impossibly onerous and unworkable. In particular, only effects which evidence shows are likely to occur and which are capable of meaningful assessment must be assessed.’

Dissenting, Lord Sales said that the EIA Directive ‘should not be given an artificially wide interpretation’.

Rowan Smith, senior associate, Leigh Day, representing Finch, said: ‘The court recognised that, because there was no doubt the oil would be burnt and release damaging [GHG] emissions into the air, such climate impact was an indirect effect of the project and should have been assessed as part of it.

‘Crucially, the court recognised that climate change is a global problem and that the damaging impact of emissions on the climate is not limited to where they originate. This truly historic judgment has very significant implications for the future assessment of fossil fuel projects and a number of cases currently before the courts.’