On 9 July 2026, the Administrative Court dismissed Gatwick Airport’s expedited judicial review challenge to regulations made by the Secretary of State for Transport providing temporary relief from the airline slot allocation regime.

The regulations allowed airlines to hand back an additional 10% of their slots for Summer 2026 and Winter 2026–27 without losing their historic rights to those slots. The measures were introduced in response to fuel shortages arising from the conflict in the Middle East and related market pressures, including reduced passenger demand and wider uncertainty affecting the aviation sector.

Gatwick argued that the Secretary of State had failed properly to assess the regulatory burden of the measures, including their impact on airports and other third parties, rendering the decision irrational. It also challenged the adequacy of the four-day consultation period and alleged a failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The High Court rejected Gatwick’s challenge on all grounds.

While the case is important in its own right, there are key takeaways for other public bodies and regulated companies which will be relevant in a wider range of circumstances. These build on some of the key themes set out in our earlier post Judicial review trends: The rising tide? 

Very short consultations can be lawful in the right circumstances

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the Court’s consideration of whether a four-day consultation period, based on a two-page letter, was lawful in the circumstances. As the Court put it:

The question is not whether a longer process would have been better, or whether more or different questions could have been asked, or whether the questions could have been better framed, or the consultation better designed. The question is whether, viewed as a whole and in its statutory and practical context, and applying the Gunning criteria, the consultation was so flawed that the resulting decision was unlawful.

While public law challenges frequently focus on the adequacy of consultation periods, the Court’s reasoning clearly demonstrates that what fairness requires is very context specific. In this case, there was genuine urgency and the consultation was taking place with sophisticated stakeholders possessing significant expertise and familiarity with the subject matter. This meant that a short consultation was lawful in the circumstances. 

Potential claimants must move exceptionally quickly where third-party rights are affected

Those familiar with the public law challenges will know the limitation period off by heart: “promptly and in any event within three months.” The Court considered that Gatwick's claim had been brought in time, with time running from the making of the regulations following completion of the parliamentary process rather than from any earlier stage.

However, the judgment also highlights the practical reality that challenges to regulatory measures capable of immediately affecting third party commercial rights may need to be brought within days in order to meet the test of promptness. Once new legislation comes into force (or a regulatory regime takes effect), third parties will take steps in reliance upon it. 

The case therefore underlines the importance for regulated entities of having processes in place to identify, assess and escalate potential grounds of challenge at speed. Legal, economic and regulatory teams may have only a very short window in which to analyse complex measures, obtain instructions and commence proceedings.

The Court gave substantial weight to the interests of affected third parties

Gatwick had initially applied for interim relief to stop the regulations coming into force but subsequently abandoned its application. This meant that the regulations came into force and, as mentioned above, third parties had acted on the basis of them. Were the regulations subsequently quashed, third parties would have suffered substantial prejudice.

Although the court did not ultimately need to consider the issue, as it dismissed the claim on the merits, the position of third parties would have been highly likely to be relevant to the question of relief. Of course, in judicial review, remedies are discretionary rather than being available as of right. 

The judgment therefore serves as an important reminder that, in public law challenges concerning regulatory frameworks, courts may look beyond the interests of the claimant and decision-maker and consider the wider impacts. For businesses operating in regulated sectors, intervening or participating as an interested party can therefore play a critical role in ensuring that those wider consequences are placed before the Court. This may be critical to the outcome.

We acted for TUI Airways Limited which participated in the proceedings as an interested party and supported the Secretary of State for Transport.

Find out more about our public law and judicial review practice.