Background

The case arose from a set of emergency regulations, the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, made by the Secretary of State on 17 June 2026 and which came into force two days later. "Slots" are the take-off and landing permissions that airlines hold at busy airports. The Regulations allowed airlines to hand back a proportion of their slots in advance of the coming year, giving them scheduling flexibility in the face of potentially disrupted aviation fuel supply caused by the current conflict in the Middle East.

Gatwick’s case was that the Secretary of State had exceeded her legal powers, had not carried out a lawful consultation, and had failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). The proceedings moved at an unusually fast pace. An initial application for emergency interim relief was withdrawn after the Court indicated that an undertaking in damages would be required. By agreement the full hearing was expedited, taking place on 7 July 2026 — less than a month after the Regulations were made.

The judgment

The Court dismissed all grounds of challenge. Three points of wider interest emerge from the judgment.

Statutory vires. The Court considered the meaning of "regulatory burden" and "voluntary scheme" under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which provided the legislative basis for the Regulations. Although the relevant powers have now expired, the judgment offers some useful guidance on the approach to the interpretation of broadly-drafted delegated powers made under time-limited legislation — a question that continues to arise in other contexts.

Consultation. A consultation window of just four days was held to be lawful. The Court applied the well-established Gunning criteria, broadly, that consultation must be at a formative stage, with sufficient information and adequate time for consultees to respond, and found they were satisfied in the particular circumstances: the urgency created by the conflict in the Middle East, the imminent expiry of the statutory power, and the technical expertise of those consulted. Significantly, the Court also found that the responses had been conscientiously considered: a point illustrated by the fact that the original proposal (which would have prevented handed-back slots from being used by other airlines) was revised in light of the responses received.

Public Sector Equality Duty. Permission to add a PSED ground was refused at the hearing. The Court noted that neither Gatwick nor any other consultee had raised equality issues during the consultation. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the Regulations raised no particular equality concerns and that no equality impact assessment was therefore required. The judgment is a useful reminder that the duty to have "due regard" under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is a duty to think, not necessarily to act — and in appropriate circumstances can legitimately be discharged by concluding that the duty adds nothing.

Michael Fry and Armin Solimani appeared for the successful Secretary of State for Transport.