No Landing for Gatwick’s Challenge: Slot Alleviation Rules Survive

On 17 June 2026, Gatwick Airport Ltd (“Gatwick”) filed a judicial review claim against the Secretary of State for Transport (“SOS”) seeking to quash the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026 (the “Alleviation Regulations”).

The Alleviation Regulations, which were made on 17 June and came into force on 19 June 2026, provide airlines with the option of exercising certain time-limited slot alleviation measures, as introduced to address the impact on aviation of the ongoing geopolitical crisis in the Middle East and associated closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The Alleviation Regulations were introduced using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (“REULA”) which expired on 23 June 2026, shortly after the Alleviation Regulations came into force.

At their core, the Alleviation Regulations temporarily amend Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at United Kingdom airports (the “Slot Regulation”) to provide airlines with the ability to hand back up to 10% of their slots at Level 3 coordinated airports in the UK for the summer 2026 and winter 2026/27 seasons, without prejudicing their right to re-allocation of those slots in the next equivalent season based on historical precedence under the Slot Regulation.  The Alleviation Regulations provide for slots to be returned in two 5% tranches before 10 July and 11 October 2026 respectively, with any returned slots then being available for temporary re-allocation to other airlines by Airport Coordination Limited (“ACL”) (in its role as UK slot coordinator) on an ad-hoc / non-historic basis. 

Gatwick’s challenge and related submissions

Gatwick initially sought interim relief to suspend the application of the Alleviation Regulations, which application was abandoned on 29 June 2026.  A rolled-up hearing followed on 7 July 2026, in which IATA appeared as intervener, alongside TUI and British Airways as Interested Parties. 

Gatwick’s submission challenged the Alleviation Regulations on the basis that the SOS failed to rationally address the pre-condition at s.14(5) of REULA, which requires that the overall effect of changes introduced using the applicable powers not increase the ‘regulatory burden’ in the relevant subject area. In this specific case, a central question was whether the slot hand-back rights under the Alleviation Regulations increased the regulatory burden faced by Gatwick / airport operators. Amongst other arguments, Gatwick also challenged the associated consultation process, arguing that insufficient consideration was given to the impact of the measures on non-airline stakeholders within the aviation industry, and that the consultation period of 4 days was too short. Gatwick also claimed that the SOS had failed to properly account for the public sector equality duty.

In response, it was argued for the SOS that the regulatory burden was properly considered for the purposes of REULA and that the SOS was appropriately advised.  It was submitted that whilst the wider slots framework may be compulsory, the Alleviation Regulations provide a temporary and voluntary scheme within it, under which airlines are not required to hand back slots, nor are they punished for declining to do so. The SOS also defended the consultation and decision-making process, noting that the consultation was targeted in nature, involved sophisticated industry participants and was conducted in an urgent operational context.  In that regard the SOS pointed to the quantity and quality of consultation responses received, alongside the fact that the scheme itself was amended following consultees’ input.

In its role as Intervener, IATA supported the SOS’ position regarding the proper interpretation of ‘regulatory burden’. IATA argued that the Alleviation Regulations operate as a voluntary scheme, that airports have very limited obligations under the slot allocation regime (which are not varied by the Alleviation Regulations), and that any economic losses allegedly suffered by Gatwick are properly viewed as downstream economic effects rather than impacting the regulatory burden. IATA also focussed on the significant prejudice and practical uncertainty that would be created for airlines  were the Alleviations Regulations to be quashed, noting the differing approaches of airlines in the face of the ongoing Judicial Review process and uncertainty as to how any unwinding of the measures implemented under the Alleviation Regulations would be handled in practice. 

British Airways and TUI likewise emphasised that the scheme is voluntary, time-limited and directed to preserving planning certainty and connectivity, and that an airport’s role under the slot allocation regime as a whole is largely passive. They argued that airlines have already planned their operations in reliance on the Regulations and that quashing them would create significant disruption for both airlines and passengers. 

Judgment

In his decision handed down on 9 July 2026, Johnson J granted Gatwick permission to bring the Judicial Review claim and agreed that Gatwick’s claim was brought within time, but ultimately dismissed the claim. The Court held that the Alleviation Regulations created a voluntary scheme which does not increase the regulatory burden within the meaning of REULA, that the indirect consequential impact on an airport’s profitability as a result of the operation of such scheme is not a regulatory burden and that the SOS’ decision in respect of the regulatory burden was not irrational. Johnson J also held that, whilst the consultation was shorter than may have been appropriate in other contexts, Gatwick had not sufficiently shown the process and subsequent decision of the SOS to be flawed, particularly given the urgent context within which these occurred.  Lastly, the Court considered there to be no merit to Gatwick’s argument that the Alleviation Regulations impacted equality of opportunity between individuals who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

Comments

Whilst the Slot Regulation provides airlines with a route to slot alleviation under so-called Justified Non-Utilisation of Slots (“JNUS”) provisions, these are most appropriately used to address ad-hoc, short-term disruption and have proved unsuitable for carriers to proactively plan at a network level.  It is noteworthy that JNUS guidance published by ACL can frequently change as a situation develops, and associated relief is assessed by ACL post event, rather than providing prospective alleviation.  Forward looking alleviation of the type established in the Alleviation Regulations, which is similar in approach to that adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, is therefore critical for planning purposes, affording airlines operational certainty and creating corresponding benefits for passengers. 

The Court’s judgment will have come as a welcome relief for airlines, who were faced with the concurrent uncertainty created by Gatwick’s claim and an impending 10 July 2026 hand-back deadline. This was coupled with a lack of clarity as to the practical implications of any quashing order, noting the effective procedural vacuum as to how any unwinding of slot alleviation would fall to be handled by ACL.

Clyde & Co acted for IATA as intervener in these proceedings, led by Partner Tom van der Wijngaart and assisted by Gabriella Mifsud and Tim Fox (and with John Kimbell KC of Quadrant Chambers instructed as Counsel).