- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United Kingdom
- /
- Scotland
- /
- Greenpeace v. North Sea Transition Authority
Greenpeace v. North Sea Transition Authority
About this case
Filing year
2025
Status
Pending
Geography
Court/admin entity
United Kingdom → Scotland → Court of Sessions → Outer House, Court of Session
Case category
Suits against governments (Global) → Trade and Investment (Global) → Environmental permitting (Global)
Principal law
United Kingdom → Regulation 16 of the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999
At issue
Whether the UK government correctly issued its approval for the development of the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field in the North Sea, specifically whether downstream emissions should have been considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
Summary
Greenpeace launched legal challenges against both the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field in the North Sea, collaborating with Uplift on the Rosebank challenge. The UK government had granted development consents after concluding that there would be “no significant effects” on the environment from drilling there. Rosebank is being developed by Equinor and Ithaca Energy, whereas Jackdaw is being developed by Shell.
Greenpeace and Uplift challenged: (1) the decision of the Secretary of State to allow the development of and production from the oil and gas fields, and (2) the Oil and Gas Authority’s decision to consent to the same. The applications were stayed pending the determination of the Supreme Court in Finch. After Finch declared that Environmental Impact Assessments must take into account downstream scope 3 emissions from developments, the UK government signaled its decision not to argue that the grants were lawful. As such, all parties agreed that both decisions were unlawful as the Environmental Impact Assessments had not considered scope 3 emissions. However, the Court of Session considered whether the decisions should be quashed and considered afresh, or whether the projects should be allowed to proceed.
Three grounds of appeal were insisted upon by the petitioners:
1. that the decisions were unlawful as they did not take account of downstream emissions. (This ground was relied on by each petitioner in each of the three petitions)
2. that the Scottish National Marine Plan was not taken into consideration. (This ground was relied upon only by Uplift in the Rosebank petition)
3. that the Oil and Gas Authority failed to give reasons for the decision. (Again, relied upon only by Uplift in the Rosebank petition)
The first ground was accepted in respect of both projects. The second and third grounds were rejected.
In January 2025, a decision by the Court of Session quashed the decisions of the Secretary of State and OGA. However, the Court of Session ruled that the reduction would be suspended until the fresh decision is reached. No oil or gas can be extracted from the sites during the suspension period.
In September 2025, Shell submitted a fresh environmental impact assessment for the Jackdaw gas field.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance