This article looks at a landmark climate litigation case involving the expansion of Heathrow Airport. The lawsuit, filed in August 2018 by the NGO Plan B Earth, alleges that in drafting its national aviation policy, the British government, in the person of the Transport Secretary, did not take into account the 2015 Paris Agreement. The first decision of the Divisional Court found that the Secretary had fulfilled his obligations to consider existing domestic climate targets. Plan B and Friends of the Earth appealed, and the Court of Appeals concluded that the government’s airport expansion policy was illegal. That decision was appealed, and in December 2020, the Supreme Court recognized the legality of the process. More than two years after the decision, the process of expanding the airport has not yet resumed. This article examines the social, political and economic situation in the United Kingdom; the British legal system; the legal arguments articulated by the parties and the courts; and the potential relationship of the case with the Brazilian reality, particularly with regard to issues such as active legitimacy, limits of questioning, procedural remedy, intervention of the Judiciary, and the effects of internationally assumed commitments on domestic politics.

Setzer, J., Rossi, L. T., & Gueorguiev, M. C. M. (2023). Plan B Earth and others vs Secretary Of State for Transport. QUAESTIO IURIS MAGAZINE16(2), 1173–1199.

Keep in touch with the Grantham Research Institute at LSE
Sign up to our newsletters and get the latest analysis, research, commentary and details of upcoming events.