Landmark Environmental Judgments and What They Mean for 2023

Harris v Environment Agency: Freeths LLP Secure a Landmark Win

The case

Timothy and Angelika Harris, both farmers, challenged the Environment Agency (EA) for failing to prevent groundwater abstraction that was damaging internationally important wetland habitats across the Norfolk Broads. They argued the EA breached article 6(2) of the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), which requires member states to avoid the deterioration of protected habitats and the disturbance of rare species.

They also relied on regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which requires public bodies to “have regard” to the Directive.

The EA claimed it had complied with article 6(2) and argued that the Directive had direct effect beyond the obligation to “have regard” to it. It also chose not to expand its investigation into wider areas of the Broads.

The High Court’s ruling

On 6 September 2022, the High Court found the EA had acted irrationally and breached both articles 6(2) and 6(3). The EA had limited its investigation to very small sections of the Broads, despite evidence that wider areas were affected.

Mr Justice Johnson held:

He also confirmed that lack of funding is not a lawful justification for failing to comply with environmental obligations.

Why the judgment matters

The court applied section 4(2)(b) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, confirming that European nature conservation laws remain enforceable post‑Brexit if recognised by UK courts before 31 January 2020.

This makes Harris historic. It confirms that EU environmental protections still bind UK regulators.

The EA now has 8 weeks to expand its investigation and produce a new plan. As Perry Simpson of Freeths LLP noted, the ruling has “wide‑reaching implications” for regulators across the UK.

Friends of the Earth v Secretary of State for BEIS: The Net Zero Strategy Declared Unlawful

The case

Friends of the Earth (FoE) brought a judicial review against the Secretary of State for BEIS, arguing that the government’s Net Zero Strategy (NZS) breached the Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA). The NZS set emissions reduction targets but failed to include timescales or quantify the impact of its policies.

The High Court’s ruling

On 18 July 2022, Mr Justice Holgate held that the Secretary of State had breached sections 13 and 14 of the CCA when approving the NZS.

The court found:

• The Secretary of State lacked adequate information to understand the risks of delivering the NZS (breaching s.13).
• Parliament and the public could not properly scrutinise the NZS due to missing information (breaching s.14).

Sections 13 and 14 require the Secretary of State to produce detailed policies capable of meeting future carbon budgets and to present those policies to Parliament.

What happens next

The government must produce an updated NZS by 31 March 2023. It must include:

• Quantified assessments of how policies will meet emissions targets
• Realistic evaluations of delivery risks
• Clear information for parliamentary scrutiny

This ruling strengthens accountability under the CCA and signals that climate policy cannot rely on vague commitments.

Looking Ahead to 2023: Risks and Opportunities for Industry

Transitional and reputational risks

Businesses face transitional risks as new climate laws, policies and regulations emerge. Companies that contribute to pollution or fail to consider climate impacts may face litigation, regulatory scrutiny or reputational damage.

Investors and regulators increasingly expect companies to demonstrate climate resilience and compliance with evolving environmental standards.

Liability risks

Landmark judgments like Harris and Friends of the Earth highlight how courts are willing to enforce environmental obligations. Liability risks may arise where businesses fail to:

• Adapt to climate change
• Mitigate environmental harm
• Comply with regulatory expectations

Climate risk must now be treated as core business risk.

Innovation and opportunity

Climate change also creates opportunities. Companies that improve resource efficiency may reduce costs. Many major energy companies are investing in new technologies, for example, Exxon’s $3 billion investment in carbon capture.

A focus on climate change can galvanise innovation, creating new products and services that support carbon reduction. The climate movement, supported by landmark cases, is driving a more competitive and forward‑looking market.