The Court of Appeal has refused Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq permission to appeal a High Court ruling that upheld the UK government’s decision to continue supplying F-35 fighter jet components to Israel.
In a judgment handed down on 12 November 2025, Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Dingemans and Lady Justice Whipple dismissed Al-Haq’s attempt to challenge what has become known as the “F-35 carve-out”.
The carve-out excluded the UK’s supply of F-35 parts from a wider suspension of export licences to Israel announced by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade on 2 September 2024.
That suspension followed an assessment by the Foreign Secretary that Israel was “not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”.
The judgement noted: “The Divisional Court had refused the applicant permission to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (the Secretary of State) on 2 September 2024 suspending export licences of military and dual-use equipment to Israel, but excluding the supply to the Global Spares Pool of F-35 aircraft components from the suspension.”
The court concluded that the Secretary of State had not applied the government’s Strategic Export Licensing Criteria (SELC) when granting the carve-out but that they were entitled to depart from that policy in an exceptional case. The judges also found no legal basis for Al-Haq’s arguments that customary international law, including obligations to prevent genocide and ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions, formed part of domestic law. Finally, the panel held that the case was not justiciable, as it would have required the court to adjudicate on the legality of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
Overall, the judgment noted that there was “no real prospect of success on the proposed appeal”.
Lord Justice Dingemans wrote that while the issues raised were “very interesting” in constitutional and international law terms, there was “no compelling reason” to hear the appeal.
The refusal leaves intact the Divisional Court’s June 2025 ruling that upheld the government’s export licensing decision.
Commenting on the ruling, Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence, said:
“This judgment once again highlights how questions of war and accountability are treated as matters of politics, not of law.”
“By refusing even to hear the appeal, the court has effectively insulated decisions about arms exports from judicial scrutiny. This at a time when the humanitarian consequences of those exports could not be clearer. It could be said that the Court of Appeal’s judgment can be judged to be appalling.”
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate