Scotland

United Kingdom

Telford and Wrekin

Cambridgeshire

Hammersmith and Fulham

Tameside

Caerphilly [Caerffili GB-CAF]

Hounslow

Southwark

Central Bedfordshire

Hartlepool

Swindon

Causeway Coast and Glens

Hertfordshire

Swansea [Abertawe GB-ATA]

Ceredigion [Sir Ceredigion]

Harrow

South Tyneside

Cheshire East

Haringey

Stockton-on-Tees

Cheshire West and Chester

Isles of Scilly

Staffordshire

Calderdale

Isle of Wight

Sutton

Clackmannanshire

Islington

Southampton

Cumbria

Inverclyde

Stirling

Camden

Kensington and Chelsea

Stoke-on-Trent

Carmarthenshire [Sir Gaerfyrddin GB-GFY]

Kent

Surrey

Cornwall

Kingston upon Hull

Southend-on-Sea

Coventry

Kirklees

Somerset

Cardiff [Caerdydd GB-CRD]

Kingston upon Thames

Solihull

Croydon

Knowsley

Sunderland

Conwy

Lancashire

South Lanarkshire

Darlington

Lisburn and Castlereagh

Slough

Derbyshire

Lambeth

Salford

Denbighshire [Sir Ddinbych GB-DDB]

Leicester

Stockport

Derby

Leeds

Shropshire

Devon

Leicestershire

St. Helens

Dumfries and Galloway

Lewisham

Sheffield

Doncaster

Lincolnshire

South Gloucestershire

Dundee City

Liverpool

Sefton

Dorset

London, City of

Suffolk

Derry and Strabane

Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon

Luton

Dudley

Manchester

Shetland Islands

Aberdeenshire

Scottish Borders

Durham, County

Middlesbrough

York

Aberdeen City

South Ayrshire

Ealing

Medway

West Sussex

Argyll and Bute

Sandwell

East Ayrshire

Mid and East Antrim

Following the UK government’s approval of the Jackdaw (2022) and Rosebank (2023) offshore fossil fuel developments, environmental NGOs Uplift and Greenpeace brought judicial review proceedings in the Court of Session in Edinburgh in December 2023. The claimants challenged the legality of the decisions, arguing that the approvals failed to consider the full climate impacts of the projects, in particular the downstream (Scope 3) emissions resulting from the eventual combustion of extracted oil and gas.

In August 2024, the UK government conceded that the original decision was unlawful in light of the UK Supreme Court’s Finch v Surrey County Council ruling, which clarified that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) must account for downstream emissions. The cases proceeded on whether the consents should be quashed or left in place pending further review.

Main Legal Issues:
	1.	Omission of Downstream Emissions: The environmental assessments for both projects had excluded Scope 3 emissions. The applicants argued this violated legal obligations under domestic and EU-derived environmental law.
	2.	Lack of Transparency: The NSTA failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding that the Rosebank development passed the “net zero” test.
	3.	Marine Environmental Impacts: In the Rosebank case, the applicants further alleged that the approval failed to properly assess the project’s impact on the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt Marine Protected Area.

On January 30, 2025, Lord Ericht ruled that the development consents for both Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful due to the failure to consider downstream emissions. Citing Finch, the court held that the environmental assessments must account for the climate impact of burning fossil fuels extracted by the projects. The consents were overturned. The ruling emphasized that the “public interest in authorities acting lawfully and the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers.” While preparatory work on the fields may continue, no extraction can occur unless and until new, lawful approvals are issued under updated guidance.

Outcome:
	•	Approval for both the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields quashed.
	•	Government must reassess the projects under new environmental guidance accounting for downstream emissions.
	•	Development cannot proceed without new consents based on a full environmental impact assessment.
	•	The decision sets a precedent for integrating climate impacts into all future UK fossil fuel project assessments.

Next Steps:
Rosebank and Jackdaw developers must submit new Environmental Statements, including downstream emissions, once the UK government finalizes revised guidance (expected Spring 2025). Any new consents will be subject to public consultation and scrutiny.

In October 2020, Greenpeace brought a case against the U.K. government for awarding BP Plc a permit to drill for 30 million barrels of oil in the North Sea. Greenpeace is challenging the permit on the grounds that the government allegedly failed (i) its legal duty to assess climate impacts, since it only weighed the effects of emissions from production, and not from the consumption of the oil extracted; (ii) to comply with public consultation requirements; and (iii) to assess how much flaring (the controlled burning of natural gas) would take place as a result of the permit being granted. Greenpeace asked the court to overturn the government’s decision to grant BP a permit for the Vorlich oil field. The lack of access to information throughout the permitting process was previously questioned by Greenpeace in another case. 

The original license for the Vorlich field was granted in 1981, when no obligations or legislation existed to regulate climate impacts. In 2018, the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) approved the development of BP’s 200 million-pound ($275 million) Vorlich project, with the consent of the Secretary of State, which carries out the Environmental Statement process, and granted a final permit to extract 30 million barrels of oil. In 2020, the notice of the Secretary of State’s agreement to the consent, and the OGA’s grant of consent in relation to the Vorlich field were published. BP began extraction from Vorlich in November 2020 and expects to extract 20,000 barrels of oil per day at peak production.

A hearing was held in September 2021. According to news reports, the UK government argued during the hearing that the legal duty to consider indirect impacts of oil drilling on climate change (scope 3 emissions) did not extend to the emissions coming from burning oil extracted and that assessing such emissions would be impossible. A decision from a panel of three judges is pending. 

On October 7, 2021 a three judge panel from the Scottish Court of Sessions dismissed the case. The Court confirmed that the matters under consideration, including the issue of consumption emissions, could be considered on the merits by the court despite the previous proceedings. Nonetheless, the Court dismissed the contention that the Secretary of State should have considered the consumption based emissions associated with the project. The Court argued that there was no duty to consider consumption based emissions from the project as part of the environmental impact assessment of the project, arguing that the question of whether the development of new oil and gas projects should cease is a political and not a legal one.

Petitioners asked the court to overturn the approval of a 22-turbine, 50 megawatt on-shore wind farm on the grounds that the Scottish Ministers who issued the decision failed to offer “clear and cogent” reasons for doing so in light of adverse impacts to the region’s distinctive character and wilderness areas. The petitioners emphasized that Scottish National Heritage (SNH) had recommended against approval of the wind farm because of its adverse impacts, and that the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires the Ministers to consult with SNH and others. However, the Highland Council, the local planning authority, had concluded that the wind farm would have minimal impacts on view sheds. The court rejected the petitioners’ arguments. It explained that the Ministers were not required to agree with the recommendations they received from consulting bodies, but only to explain their decision in full and to respond to points raised by consulting bodies if necessary. Because the Ministers’ explanation reflected a balancing of the relevant factors and met the “clear and cogent” standard in the court’s view, it would stand.

Scotland

Recent cases