R (Foodrise Ltd) v HM Treasury and Others

Why It Matters

The ruling will determine whether firms can contest environmental regulations without prohibitive cost exposure, shaping corporate climate‑risk strategies and the broader landscape of environmental litigation in the UK.

Key Takeaways

• Article 93’s scope for environmental judicial reviews is fiercely contested.
• Appellant seeks cost protection even when permission is denied.
• Court examines whether policies count as “national law relating to environment.”
• Respondent argues only explicit statutory provisions qualify under Article 93.
• Decision will shape cost risk for future climate‑law challenges.

Summary

The hearing of Foodrise Ltd v HM Treasury centered on the interpretation of Article 93 of the Convention governing cost protection in judicial reviews that allege breaches of national environmental law. Both sides debated whether the article applies only to explicit statutory provisions or also to policies, public‑law principles, and broader environmental obligations. Key arguments focused on the appellant’s position that any claim alleging a contravention of a law or policy linked to environmental protection should automatically trigger cost protection, even if the claim ultimately fails or permission is denied. The respondents countered that Article 93 should be limited to clear, express statutory duties, citing cases such as McMourn, White, and the Northeast Pylon decision to illustrate the narrow reading. Notable exchanges highlighted the court’s need to assess pleadings at the outset: “It is sufficient for a claimant to allege a contravention of a national law which can at the outset be definitively characterized as a national law relating to the environment.” The discussion also referenced Lord Justice Sullivan’s analysis that planning policies, though not always labelled “environmental,” may still embody parliamentary intent and thus fall within the article’s scope. The outcome will set a precedent for the cost‑risk calculus of future climate‑related challenges. A broad reading could lower financial barriers for NGOs and businesses contesting environmental decisions, while a narrow interpretation would preserve the Treasury’s fiscal safeguards but potentially limit access to justice.

Original Description

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

Case ID: UKSC/2025/0119

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2025-0119.html

Hearing date: 11 June 2026.

On appeal from: [2025] EWCA Civ 624

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 claim for breach of national law relating to the environment. 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.