Introduction

The case of Global Feedback Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor ([2023] EWCA Civ 1549) scrutinizes the application of section 13(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 ("the Climate Change Act") in the context of governmental strategies aimed at achieving carbon budgets. Specifically, the central issue revolves around whether the duty imposed on the Secretary of State to prepare proposals and policies enabling the fulfillment of carbon budgets extends to the preparation of DEFRA's Government Food Strategy ("the Food Strategy") published on 13 June 2022.

The appellant, Global Feedback Ltd ("Global Feedback"), sought judicial review of DEFRA's adoption of the Food Strategy, arguing it failed to comply with legal obligations under the Climate Change Act. The initial claims were dismissed at lower courts, prompting an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which presented critical interpretations of legislative duties and inter-departmental responsibilities concerning climate policy formation.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) delivered a judgment on 21 December 2023, ultimately dismissing Global Feedback's claim for judicial review. The court concluded that section 13 of the Climate Change Act did not impose a duty on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (SSEFRA) to prepare the Food Strategy as part of the obligations to meet carbon budgets. Consequently, there was no failure in duty that would render the Food Strategy unlawful.

The Court of Appeal analyzed the statutory context of section 13, interpreting it as a duty vested in a single Secretary of State with overarching responsibility for national carbon budgets, rather than extending to individual departments or secretaries of state with sector-specific mandates. The court emphasized the indivisibility of the Secretary of State's office and concluded that the Food Strategy fell outside the scope of section 13 obligations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key legal precedents and authoritative texts to interpret the obligations under the Climate Change Act:

• Black-Clawson International Ltd v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG: Emphasized the importance of conventional statutory interpretation principles.
• Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v. Secretary of State for the Home Department: Reinforced the separation of offices under the Crown's secretaries.
• Harrison v Bush: Explored the historical context of the Secretary of State's office as an indivisible entity.
• Re Quinn's Application: Highlighted the Interpretation Act 1978's definition of the Secretary of State.
• Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth, and Good Law Project v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Provided a foundational interpretation of section 13 duty as a continuous, centralized obligation.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning focuses on statutory interpretation principles, particularly the indivisibility of the Secretary of State's office. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, the term "Secretary of State" refers to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, not multiple individuals sharing responsibilities. The judgment underscores that section 13 imposes a duty on a singular Secretary of State, responsible for the entire national strategy to meet carbon budgets, rather than delegating sector-specific policies to various departments or ministers. This centralized responsibility ensures coherent, strategy-wide policy formation essential for achieving national carbon targets.

Additionally, the court distinguishes between overarching strategic duties and sector-specific initiatives. While departments like DEFRA contribute to national goals, their strategies (e.g., the Food Strategy) do not individually engage the section 13 obligations. The court rejects the argument that these strategies are "left over" tasks meant to fulfill the Climate Change Act's requirements, affirming that such tasks are separate and do not fall under the centralized duty of the Secretary of State.

Impact

This judgment clarifies the extent of the Secretary of State's obligations under the Climate Change Act, reinforcing the principle that strategic duties to meet national carbon budgets are centralized. It delineates the boundaries between national strategic obligations and departmental policy initiatives, thereby streamlining accountability. Future cases involving similar interpretations will likely reference this judgment to ascertain whether specific departmental actions fall under overarching legislative duties or remain within sector-specific mandates.

Moreover, the decision emphasizes the importance of clear legislative drafting to assign responsibilities, potentially influencing future amendments to the Climate Change Act or similar statutes to explicitly delineate duties if decentralization is intended.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 13 of the Climate Change Act 2008

This section imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare proposals and policies aimed at meeting the carbon budgets set forth in the Act. These budgets are five-yearly targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to the UK's long-term goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

Carbon Budgets

Carbon budgets are legally binding limits on the total amount of greenhouse gases the UK can emit over a five-year period. They are designed to ensure that the country stays on track to meet its overall emissions reduction targets.

Secretary of State

Under the Interpretation Act 1978, the term "Secretary of State" refers to any one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, not multiple individuals. This means that statutory duties assigned to "the Secretary of State" are centralized to the office rather than distributed among various holders.

Climate Change Committee (CCC)

The CCC is an independent body established by the Climate Change Act to advise the UK government on emissions targets and to report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process in which courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they comply with the law. In this case, Global Feedback Ltd sought judicial review to challenge the legality of the Food Strategy under the Climate Change Act.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Global Feedback Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment reinforces the centralized nature of statutory duties under the Climate Change Act 2008. By clarifying that section 13's obligations rest solely with a singular Secretary of State, the court demarcates the boundaries between national strategic responsibilities and sector-specific policy initiatives. This decision not only resolves the immediate legal challenge posed by Global Feedback Ltd but also sets a clear precedent for interpreting similar statutory duties in the future. Consequently, governmental departments can pursue sector-specific strategies, such as the Food Strategy, without invoking overarching legislative duties unless explicitly mandated by the law.

The judgment underscores the necessity for precise legislative language to allocate responsibilities and the importance of centralized accountability in achieving national policy objectives. As the UK continues to navigate its path towards net zero emissions, this clarity in statutory interpretation will be pivotal in shaping effective and legally compliant climate policies.