Heathrow Hub seeks process to appeal High Court Judgement

1127
Process to appeal, heathrow hub, high court judgement,

Heathrow Hub, the independent proposal for expanding Heathrow Airport, has commenced the process to appeal the High Court Judgement handed down on 1 May 2019

The High Court Judgement refused a Judicial Review of the government’s decision to proceed with Heathrow Airport Ltd’s North West Runway.

Jock Lowe, director of Heathrow Hub said: “We don’t agree with the Judgement handed down on the 1 May, which we are advised is legally flawed, at odds with the evidence the court itself heard and gives us strong grounds to appeal.

“We continue to believe that the Department for Transport bungled the decision-making process for Heathrow expansion and that our Extended Runway proposal is cheaper, quieter and simpler to build than the ridiculously complicated and expensive North West Runway.

“Despite the ongoing legal proceedings, an Extended Runway could still be operational much sooner than Heathrow Airport Ltd’s North West Runway scheme, which remains uncosted, and is barely recognisable as the proposal considered by the Airports Commission or indeed approved by Parliament.”

On 1 May the High Court refused permission to proceed and/or refused the application on the various grounds Heathrow Hub submitted for Judicial Review of the Secretary of State’s 2018 decision to designate the Airports National Policy Statement.

The application for the process to appeal is based on the following grounds:

  • Distortion of competition – Request in August 2016 by the Secretary of State to Heathrow Hub to obtain ‘a guarantee’ from Heathrow Airport Ltd that it would build the extended runway
  • The reasoning of the Secretary of State – The Court failed to take into account the unlawfulness of the Secretary of State’s reason for his decision and instead sought to substitute the reason with its own reason.
  • Parliamentary Privilege – The Court deprived Heathrow Hub of its ability to rely on evidence that was central to its case by declining to make a finding on the admissibility of its evidence under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
  • Legitimate expectation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here