- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
- within Wealth Management, Employment and HR and Technology topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
In a notable decision for the world of nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) judicial reviews, the Court of Appeal yesterday brought to an end the legal challenge to the grant of the London Luton Airport Expansion Development Consent Order 2025 in refusing the claimant’s application for an extension of time to file their appeal, after they missed the new shorter timescale for doing so brought in as part of the Government’s post-Banner Review reforms.
Background
Community group, the Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN), brought a judicial review against the grant of a development consent order (DCO) to the owners of Luton Airport last April 2025, which would allow the airport to grow to 32 million passengers per annum. The claim had six grounds, largely focussing on alleged errors in the environmental impact assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, reliance on the Climate Change Act 2008 regime and compliance with the amended protected landscapes duty.
The claim was dismissed in full by Mrs Justice Lang in December 2025 in R (LADACAN) v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] EWHC 3206 (Admin) (link).
Appeal timings
The Government’s procedural reforms to NSIP judicial reviews following the Banner Review sought to speed up such claims end to end, including at the Court of Appeal stage. As a result, amendments were made in late July 2025 (effective from 1 October 2025) to the Court procedural rules (CPR PD 52D) to specify a target timescale for determining an application for permission to appeal in an NSIP judicial review of four weeks from the filing of an appellant’s notice and a new deadline for an appellant to file that notice of within seven days of the decision being appealed. This is reduced from the previous deadline of 21 days for appeals of substantive High Court judicial review decisions.
In the LADACAN case the appellant issued its application for permission to appeal 16 days after the High Court judgment was handed down, and was therefore out of time under the revised rules. Upon realising, it made an application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time and relief from sanctions.
The Court of Appeal listed a rolled-up hearing to consider the extension of time application, permission to appeal and the substantive appeal itself, over 19 and 20 May 2026. At that hearing leading counsel for the appellant acknowledged the seriousness of the error but argued that the delay had not caused prejudice to the other parties and that the appellant’s grounds were of sufficient strength that the Court should grant the extension and allow them to be heard. Leading counsel for the Secretary of State, resisting, argued that to allow an appeal to proceed having missed the new procedural deadline on the first test of that deadline would be unjustified, particularly in light of the clear intention behind the reforms of streamlining NSIP judicial reviews and the weakness of the grounds of appeal.
After hearing submissions in the morning of 19 May, the Court confirmed that the extension of time would not be granted, bringing an end to the appeal. Full reasons are anticipated in the coming days.
Comment
This is another example of the judiciary enforcing strict procedural rigour in public law claims and, here, giving full effect to the Government’s reforms to NSIP judicial reviews. It follows the recent decision of Mrs Justice Lieven to certify a legal challenge to a solar farm DCO as “totally without merit” and therefore prevent it from being appealed to the Court of Appeal at all under the new procedural rules (in which HSF Kramer acted for the Interested Party and which we posted about here).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]