High Court Rejects Challenge to the Net Zero Teesside Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (“CCUS”) Project

19 August, 2024

The High Court (Lieven J) has handed down a judgment dismissing an application for judicial review by Dr Andrew Boswell of the decision by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to grant development consent for the Net Zero Teesside CCUS project (R (Dr Boswell) v. (1) Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (2) Net Zero Teesside Power Ltd. (3) Net Zero North Sea Storage Ltd. [2024] EWHC 2128 (Admin)).

High Court Rejects Challenge to the Net Zero Teesside Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage (“CCUS”) Project

19 August, 2024

The High Court (Lieven J) has handed down a judgment dismissing an application for judicial review by Dr Andrew Boswell of the decision by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to grant development consent for the Net Zero Teesside CCUS project (R (Dr Boswell) v. (1) Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (2) Net Zero Teesside Power Ltd. (3) Net Zero North Sea Storage Ltd. [2024] EWHC 2128 (Admin)).

The Net Zero Teesside CCUS project will be the UK’s first full-chain carbon capture and storage scheme and was granted development consent by the Secretary of State on 16 February 2024.

Dr Boswell had objected to the project at the examination into the application and in written representations to the Secretary of State.  Following the making of the DCO he sought permission to apply for judicial review on four grounds, related to the project’s greenhouse gas emissions, its consistency with national policy and the weight attached to the need for the project in the planning balance.

All four grounds were rejected following a one and a half day ‘rolled-up’ hearing, with the Judge agreeing with the Interested Parties’ submission that the Claimant was “wilfully choosing to ignore what is said in national policy about the net zero trajectory and the need for CCS/CCUS.  The Claimant plainly disagrees with the SoS’s approach, and indeed that of the Climate Change Committee, in their support for this project.  He is seeking to use this case as a method of challenging the policy support for the Scheme by trying to find an inconsistency in the SoS’s analysis where none actually exists.”

Hereward Phillpot KC and Isabella Tafur, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, appeared on behalf of the Interested Parties.