If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a
version of this document in a more accessible format, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.
Of the 7 broad areas of challenge made against HS2, the court ruled in the government’s favour on all of the these. Three of the appeals were dismissed while the court refused the appellants permission to appeal on the other 4. The court:
supported the High Court ruling that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive did not apply to HS2 and so found that the government’s approach to assessing the environmental impacts of HS2 had been lawful
agreed with the High Court ruling, finding that the government did not have to re-consult on 51M’s optimised alternative
dismissed challenges about whether the hybrid bill process proposed for HS2 was compatible with Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive
agreed with High Court ruling, finding that it had been reasonable for the government to consult on Phase Two route separately from the principle of HS2 and the phase one route
found that the government had not failed to comply with the public sector equality duty
agreed with the High Court ruling, finding that it had not been irrational of the Secretary of State for Transport to decide to have the London terminus at Euston
agreed with High Court ruling, finding that no significant points had been omitted from the Secretary of State for Transport’s consideration of Heathrow Hub Ltd’s proposal