Friends of the Earth and solar companies claim victory in FITs judicial review

The Department for Energy and Climate Change’s approach to implementing controversial cuts to feed-in tariffs was unlawful, a High Court judge has ruled.

Mr Justice Mitting ruled against ministers after they imposed an ‘effective date’ for the cuts of 12 December, two weeks before the end of the FIT review consultation period on 23 December.

The challenge was brought by campaign group Friends of the Earth and two solar energy companies, Solarcentury and Homesun.

The government’s decision to impose substantial cuts this month, rather than the expected date of April 2012, led a number of local authorities and housing associations to delay or cancel projects.

Jeremy Leggett, Chairman of Solarcentury, said: "We encourage the Secretary of State to accept the judge’s very clear ruling, not plunge the industry into a further period of uncertainty by considering going to appeal, and to conduct the remainder of the current consultation process properly with constructive conversations with the industry."

Leggett insisted that the company had been given no choice by DECC but to bring the legal challenge. “All of this could have been avoided if DECC had done a proper consultation last summer, as they promised, and engaged constructively with the solar industry,” he claimed.

Solarcentury’s chairman added: “I hope they (DECC) now understand that we cannot work in a market which is subject to whimsical and back dated decisions. We are still waiting for DECC to publish Phase 2 of the consultation about the management of the FITs scheme. Let’s hope DECC do not try and pull another stunt to ambush us yet again.”

Daniel Green, chief executive of HomeSun CEO, Daniel Green, said: “This ruling is important not only for the solar industry but for all future government consultations. To have an ‘effective date’ in the middle of a consultation must never happen again because it makes a mockery of the very essence of what a consultation is. By finding this policy illegal, the judicial review has stopped a dangerous precedent being set.”