Court of Appeal to hear Teesside 'net zero' power plant claims
Net Zero Teesside Power, owned by BP and Equinor, is developing the plant on the Teesworks site near Redcar.It has previously said that the project could generate up to 860 megawatts of low carbon electricity.It claimed that at least 90% of the gas power station's emissions would be captured and funnelled beneath the North Sea.In February 2024 the government granted the project a development order (DCO) which is required for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
'Counting mistakes'
But at the High Court last year, legal representatives for Dr Boswell said the consultant had exposed "a large double-counting error" regarding how the power station's likely greenhouse gas emissions would be calculated.Barrister Catherine Dobson said the final assessment - that it may contribute more than 20 million tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent" into the atmosphere over its lifetime - was "significantly greater" than previously estimated.She argued there was "a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning" which led to the development consent decision.She said this meant the previous government had taken an unlawful approach when assessing the need for the project.This argument was dismissed by Mrs Justice Lieven, however, with her saying there was "no logical flaw in the reasoning" set out by ministers.This will be put to the test in September when Dr Boswell appeals against that High Court judgement.
'Carbon row'
Dr Boswell said carbon capture was an "unproven technology" which risks keeping energy bills high and tied to a "volatile gas market". "[It offers] no guarantee of success or meaningful progress towards Net Zero," he added. A DESNZ spokesperson said there was "no route to protecting jobs in our industrial heartlands" in the UK without carbon capture. "This funding will see our industries remain competitive in the global economy, kickstart growth and lead the world in a ground-breaking clean energy technology."Net Zero Teesside Power said it could not comment on live legal proceedings.
Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Drivers should be ‘very pessimistic' over car finance claims, say lawyers
Industry analysts also said on Friday that banks will 'breathe a sigh of relief' after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Nevertheless, the financial watchdog has said it is still considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who potentially receive compensation. Lawyers have also indicated that some consumers should still consider pursuing their claims over 'unfair' treatment. We welcome that the Supreme Court has clarified the law. We want to provide clarity as quickly as possible. So we'll confirm whether we will consult on a redress scheme before markets open on Monday 4 — Financial Conduct Authority (@TheFCA) August 1, 2025 Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers in agreements before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation. But in a decision on Friday, justices at the UK's highest court overturned the Court of Appeal, though some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. However, the judges upheld a claim brought by one driver under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair', awarding him the commission amount of £1,650.95 plus interest. Lizzy Comley, chief operating officer of consumer law firm Slater and Gordon, said the ruling still reinforces the right of many consumers to pursue claims. Following today's Supreme Court decision regarding the mis-selling of car finance, Slater and Gordon's, Elizabeth Comley, has issued the following statement. Read the statement in full on our website: — Slater and Gordon UK (@SlaterGordonUK) August 1, 2025 She said: 'This landmark ruling is positive news for the millions of people who have lost money due to the car finance mis-selling. 'The court confirmed that for years, consumers have potentially been unfairly overcharged on car finance agreements, and this ruling reinforces their right to pursue justice and recover the compensation they deserve.' However, others have said that the ruling will make it harder for most claims. Nicola Pangbourne, partner at Kennedys law firm, said: 'If I was a driver, I would be very pessimistic about getting compensation. There's now quite a few hurdles they've got to get through.' Industry experts have suggested the ruling will be broadly seen as a success for lenders, who had been preparing for significant compensation payments. Caroline Wayman, global head of financial Services at PA Consulting, said: 'Lenders will breathe a sigh of relief at the ruling, but it should still be a wake-up call for firms to scrutinise any large, undisclosed commissions in their business. 'Firms should ask themselves whether it still feels justifiable or could be considered unfair, particularly if they haven't disclosed commercial ties to the broker and it won't be enough to expect customers to have read and understood the fine print.' On Friday, a spokesperson for the Financial Conduct Authority said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday. They said: 'We want to bring greater certainty for consumers, firms and investors as quickly as possible.'
Powys County Times
5 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
Powys County Times
5 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Drivers should be ‘very pessimistic' over car finance claims, say lawyers
Drivers should be 'very pessimistic' about getting any compensation for taking out a car loan after a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, experts have warned. Industry analysts also said on Friday that banks will 'breathe a sigh of relief' after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Nevertheless, the financial watchdog has said it is still considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who potentially receive compensation. Lawyers have also indicated that some consumers should still consider pursuing their claims over 'unfair' treatment. We welcome that the Supreme Court has clarified the law. We want to provide clarity as quickly as possible. So we'll confirm whether we will consult on a redress scheme before markets open on Monday 4 August. — Financial Conduct Authority (@TheFCA) August 1, 2025 Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers in agreements before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The ruling last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation. But in a decision on Friday, justices at the UK's highest court overturned the Court of Appeal, though some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. However, the judges upheld a claim brought by one driver under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair', awarding him the commission amount of £1,650.95 plus interest. Lizzy Comley, chief operating officer of consumer law firm Slater and Gordon, said the ruling still reinforces the right of many consumers to pursue claims. Following today's Supreme Court decision regarding the mis-selling of car finance, Slater and Gordon's, Elizabeth Comley, has issued the following statement. Read the statement in full on our website: — Slater and Gordon UK (@SlaterGordonUK) August 1, 2025 She said: 'This landmark ruling is positive news for the millions of people who have lost money due to the car finance mis-selling. 'The court confirmed that for years, consumers have potentially been unfairly overcharged on car finance agreements, and this ruling reinforces their right to pursue justice and recover the compensation they deserve.' However, others have said that the ruling will make it harder for most claims. Nicola Pangbourne, partner at Kennedys law firm, said: 'If I was a driver, I would be very pessimistic about getting compensation. There's now quite a few hurdles they've got to get through.' Industry experts have suggested the ruling will be broadly seen as a success for lenders, who had been preparing for significant compensation payments. Caroline Wayman, global head of financial Services at PA Consulting, said: 'Lenders will breathe a sigh of relief at the ruling, but it should still be a wake-up call for firms to scrutinise any large, undisclosed commissions in their business. 'Firms should ask themselves whether it still feels justifiable or could be considered unfair, particularly if they haven't disclosed commercial ties to the broker and it won't be enough to expect customers to have read and understood the fine print.' On Friday, a spokesperson for the Financial Conduct Authority said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday. They said: 'We want to bring greater certainty for consumers, firms and investors as quickly as possible.'
