Charity criticises legal ruling on Australia trade challenge

Environmental charity Feedback has condemned a legal ruling that could derail their ongoing challenge to the UK-Australia trade agreement, warning it sets a dangerous precedent for access to environmental justice in the UK.

In a pivotal ruling on Tuesday 13 May, the Court of Appeal upheld the Labour government’s challenge to a £10,000 cost cap granted under the Aarhus Convention – an international treaty designed to guarantee affordable access to justice in environmental matters.

The court sided with the UK government, ruling that Feedback’s claim did not fall under Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention because the legislation in question was not primarily concerned with environmental protection.

See also: Government accused of hypocrisy over Aussie trade challenge

Without the protection of the cap, Feedback now faces the risk of paying tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs if it proceeds with its legal challenge and then loses the case.

Carina Millstone, executive director of Feedback, said the ruling marks a setback not just for the organisation, but for environmental justice more broadly.

“This is an extremely significant and deeply disappointing ruling,” Ms Millstone said.

“At a time when we urgently need more scrutiny over the environmental consequences of government decisions, this judgment narrows access to justice and weakens the vital protections the Aarhus Convention was meant to guarantee.”

Legal costs

Feedback is now considering whether to appeal, though Ms Millstone warned that ongoing legal costs may be insurmountable for a small charity.

“We’re reviewing our options, but like so many small civil society organisations, we face serious limitations on what we can afford. Justice shouldn’t come down to the size of your legal budget,” she said.

Feedback had argued that the trade deal – finalised in 2023 – failed to properly consider the global emissions consequences of increased meat and dairy imports from Australia, which are widely acknowledged to have a higher carbon footprint than UK-produced equivalents.

The case had drawn support from environmental and farming groups, including Save British Farming (SBF), which criticised the trade agreement for undermining UK agricultural standards and climate commitments.

Reaction

Critics have turned their ire on the Labour government, accusing it of quietly backing the controversial deal negotiated by the previous Conservative government while attempting to quash opposition through financial pressure.

SBF founder Liz Webster said: “It’s a deeply disappointing outcome, particularly when British farmers are under constant pressure to cut their emissions. This decision risks shutting down vital scrutiny of our trade policies at a time when environmental accountability is more important than ever.

“I sincerely hope Feedback is able to crowdfund and continue this legal challenge – it’s essential that we build systems where governments are held to the very climate commitments they’ve set.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “We welcome the judgment of the Court of Appeal in favour of the government.

“This decision helps preserve public funds by clarifying the rules relating to public authorities’ ability to recover their costs when they are successful in public law cases.”