Gatwick Airport Limited -v- Secretary of State for Transport
Claim number: AC-2026-LON-002801
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
19 June 2026
Before:
The Hon. Mr Justice Chamberlain
Between:
The King on the application of
Gatwick Airport Limited
-v-
Secretary of State for Transport
Order
On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, directions and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Written Submission of the Secretary of State and witness statement of David Silk dated 18 June 2026 and further written submissions by email from the parties on 18 June 2026 (including an email sent on behalf of the International Air Transport Association (“IATA”)
ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE CHAMBERLAIN
- Rolled-up hearing: The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be listed as a “rolled-up” hearing. If permission is granted, the court will proceed immediately to determine the claim.
- Expedition and directions: The rolled-up hearing is to be listed on an expedited basis. The parties must by 2pm on 19 June 2026 liaise among themselves and with the Administrative Court List Office and must file a note of the directions sought (if possible, in agreed form; otherwise, competing versions may be submitted).
- Interim relief:
(a) The application for interim relief is to be considered at a hearing at 12 noon on Monday 22 June 2026.
(b) The claimant must file and serve electronic hearing and authorities bundles for the interim relief hearing by 4pm on 19 June 2026 (in accordance with the guidance in the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide).
(c) The parties must file skeleton arguments (maximum 10 pages) by 9 am on Monday 22 June 2026.
(d) The application for immediate interim relief in the form of an order suspending the effect of the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026 in the period pending the interim relief hearing is refused. - Service: This Order will be sealed on 19 June 2026. The unsealed version is to be sent to the parties by email immediately. The claimant is to email a copy of the unsealed version of this Order to a proper representative of every airline operating from Gatwick Airport and to IATA.
Reasons
(1) By this claim, the claimant challenges the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026, which amend an EU Regulation having effect as retained EU law. The effect of the challenged Regulations is to reduce from 80% to 70% the percentage of slots at UK airports which airlines are required to use in order to maintain their allocation of slots. The defendant says that the Regulations are necessary in the light of the disruption to shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz, which gives rise to risks to the viability of airline schedules.
(2) The Regulations are made under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and are required to be made under the draft affirmative procedure. They were laid were laid in draft on 20 May 2026 and approved by the House of Commons on 10 June and by the House of Lords on 15 June. The Regulations were made by the Secretary of State on 17 June and are due to come into force on 19 June (i.e. tomorrow).
(3) The Claim Form and supporting documents, accompanied by the application for urgent consideration seeking directions for expedition and interim relief, were filed on 17 June. Garnham J directed a response by 12 noon today. At 3.40pm today, I invited the parties to make further written submissions on three points.
(4) I consider that the appropriate course is to fix a hearing to determine to grant interim relief on Monday 22 June 2026 at 12 noon. This means that the Regulations will come into force on 19 June. I have considered carefully whether to grant immediate interim relief to hold the ring until then but have decided not to do so for three reasons.
(5) First, in the limited time available to me today, I have not been able to reach any firm views about the merits of the challenge. I note, however, that the success of Ground 1 depends on showing that the defendant acted irrationally in concluding that the “overall effect of the changes… does not increase the regulatory burden”. Even the process challenges will face the hurdle of demonstrating that the defendant acted irrationally in determining the process. As to Ground 2, the adequacy of the consultation will have to be considered in the context of a proposal to address an urgent problem, where speed was of the essence and the relevant statutory power was due to expire shortly. At this very early stage, it is not possible to say of either ground that its prospects are strong.
(6) Secondly, I express no view at this stage about whether the claimant could or should have filed its application to the court sooner than it has. That will have to be considered at the hearing on Monday 22 June. But I note that the claimant has not served the claim any of the third parties who would be affected by the interim relief sought (in particular, the airlines who may wish to begin to hand back their slots on or immediately after 19 June). It will have to be considered at the interim relief hearing whether the claimant should have served those parties. Whatever conclusion the Court reaches on that question, the fact remains that the decision not to engage formally with these third parties means that I have no reliable evidence from them as to the effect of the interim relief sought on them. Such evidence as I do have (from Mr Silk) suggests that it would have a disruptive effect on them. The email from IATA suggests that airlines have already begun to take scheduling decisions on the footing that the Regulation will come into effect. Fairness demands that they be given a proper opportunity to address the Court, whether individually or through IATA, before any interim relief is granted.
(7) Thirdly, although undertakings in damages are not always required as a condition of interim relief in public law cases, this is a case where the claimant is litigating to protect its own commercial interests. It says that the Regulations, if they come into force, will cause it to suffer loss which would not be compensable. But, if the claim is unsuccessful, the interim relief sought will cause others to suffer loss which would not be compensable unless the claimant gives an undertaking in damages. In those circumstances, it is surprising that the claimant did not offer any undertaking in damages in its initial application to the Court. When I enquired whether it was prepared to do so, it responded by offering a capped undertaking in damages (up to the value of £1 million) and refining its request for interim relief to seek the suspension of the Regulations only in relation to slots at Gatwick. I am not prepared to grant interim relief in that form at such very short notice, and without a hearing. Fairness requires that third parties who may be affected have an opportunity to make submissions on whether: (i) their losses might exceed the level of the cap; and (ii) an order suspending the effect of the Regulation in relation to Gatwick slots only would or might have a distorting or otherwise adverse effect on the market.