R (on the application of Foodrise Ltd (formerly Global Feedback Limited)) (Appellant) v His Majesty's Treasury and others (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0119

Parties

Appellant(s)

Foodrise Ltd (formerly Global Feedback Limited)

Respondent(s)

His Majesty's Treasury and Secretary of State for Business and Trade

WWF

Issue

Does the judicial review claim fall within the scope of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention so that the Appellant can access costs protection under Part IX of CPR 46?

Facts

The UK and Australia signed a Free Trade Agreement (“FTA”) on 17 December 2021. The Respondents decided on 23 February 2023 to make the Customs Tariff (Preferential Trade Arrangements and Tariff Quotas) (Australia) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023 No. 195) (the “2023 Regulations”) which give effect to preferential tariffs on Australian imports under the FTA. The 2023 Regulations came into force on 31 May 2023. The Appellant says that the FTA will increase greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from beef imports. This is because beef production in Australia produces significantly more GHG emissions than production in the UK. The lower prices of Australian beef are likely to result in an increase in production of Australian beef for consumption in the UK and decrease production of UK beef. This will result in “carbon leakage” where production moves from one country to another country where production is more GHG intensive. The Appellant applied for permission to bring a judicial review to challenge the decision to make the 2023 Regulations. This application was granted by the High Court. The Appellant also successfully applied to the High Court for a costs limit order under Part IX of CPR 46 where the court held that the claim was an Aarhus Convention Claim. The Aarhus Convention is an international treaty that promotes access to information, public participation and access to justice in environmental matters. An Aarhus Convention Claim is a judicial review claim brought by members of the public which challenges the legality of a public body’s decision and falls within Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention. The Court of Appeal decided that the claim was not an Aarhus Convention Claim and allowed the Respondents’ appeal against the costs limit order. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court. The claim for judicial review is stayed pending the determination of this appeal.

Date of issue

18 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top