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 10 broad areas of challenge made against HS2, the court has ruled categorically in the government’s favour on 9 of these. The judge:
dismissed challenges to the fairness and lawfulness of the 2011 consultation on HS2 strategy and the phase one route
rejected challenges that the government was required to comply with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive
dismissed challenges that the government failed to comply with the Habitats Directive
dismissed the challenge that the hybrid bill process could not comply with the Environmental Assessment Directive
dismissed the challenge that the government is required to present the environmental impacts of the entire Y network to Parliament alongside the phase one bill
dismissed challenges that the government has failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty
dismissed challenges that the Secretary of State for Transport’s decisions on Euston, the HS1 link, and the Heathrow spur were irrational
dismissed the challenge that the Secretary of State for Transport has fettered his discretion, and predetermined the outcome of future aviation strategy
dismissed the challenge that the government failed to properly consider the proposed route alternative submitted by the Aylesbury Park Golf Club claimants in response to the 2011 consultation
upheld the challenge that the consultation process was unfair, because not enough information was provided to consultees and the criteria by which compensation options were considered were not adequately explained - he also found that the government had not fully considered HS2 Action Alliance’s detailed consultation response on compensation.