Oceana v Energy Secretary and another

Oceana, a marine conservation organization, applied for judicial review of the award of 28 oil and gas offshore exploration licenses in June 2024 by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, acting through the North Sea Transition Authority ("NSTA"). They argue that the decision failed to assess downstream / scope 3 emissions and the impacts of the licenses on Marine Protected Areas ("MPAs"). The case was heard in March 2025. The grounds of challenge were that the NSTA: (1) Failed to consider the impact of oil and gas industry accidents (including oil spills and discharges) on MPAs and their conservation features. (2) Failed to consider the ongoing impact of the climate crisis on the marine environments set to be impacted by these licenses, and failed to consider the full climate impact of the licensed activity, including scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions, such as from the use of the extracted oil and gas). (3) Failed adequately to assess the cumulative impacts of the licensed activity on the relevant sites. (4) Failed to pay due regard to the advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England in relation to the matters raised by several of the grounds above: these organizations had advised that they could not conclude that the drilling would have no adverse effect on the designated sites and that allowing the exploration in MPAs would make it impossible for the government to achieve marine protection targets. The High Court found against the claimants on all grounds. It found as follows: (1) disagreed – while it was accepted that oil and gas activities in the UK continental shelf carried a risk of accidents, the appropriate assessments acknowledged the risk of accidents, but their focus was on the management of that risk. The court’s role was not to substitute its own judgement as to what a precautionary approach required, but whether the Secretary of State had a reasonable basis for judging their approach to be precautionary. The Court found there to be a reasonable basis given there was insufficient information at the time of the licences to meaningfully assess, manage and plan for the risk of accidents, and it was therefore appropriate to delay consideration of these accidents; (2) disagreed – while assessments needed to take into account that protected sites are under pressure from climate change, the Court found no misunderstanding of or failure to engage with the findings and conclusion of the scientific evidence presented. It was not possible to give specific consideration of the impact of climate change on the MPAs, given the absence of information as to how much climate change is affecting their qualifying features. The Court also rejected that the decision in Finch could be read across to the various regimes protecting habitats; (3) disagreed – the statutory regime created a multi-stage consent process whereby consent to undertake activities and development and production activities would equally require further consent. It is legitimate in this context to defer the assessment of effects until they are known with a sufficient certainty; and (4) disagreed – the Court was “quite satisfied” that the reasons given gave a sufficiently cogent explanation of the Secretary of State’s approach and disagreement with the JNCC.