Scotland

United Kingdom

Bury

West Berkshire

Manchester

Cambridgeshire

West Dunbartonshire

Middlesbrough

Caerphilly [Caerffili GB-CAF]

Waltham Forest

Medway

Central Bedfordshire

Wigan

Mid and East Antrim

Causeway Coast and Glens

Wiltshire

Milton Keynes

Ceredigion [Sir Ceredigion]

Wakefield

Midlothian

Cheshire East

Walsall

Monmouthshire [Sir Fynwy GB-FYN]

Cheshire West and Chester

West Lothian

Merton

Calderdale

Wales [Cymru GB-CYM]

Moray

Clackmannanshire

Wolverhampton

Merthyr Tydfil [Merthyr Tudful GB-MTU]

Cumbria

Wandsworth

Mid-Ulster

Camden

West Northamptonshire

North Ayrshire

Carmarthenshire [Sir Gaerfyrddin GB-GFY]

Windsor and Maidenhead

Northumberland

Cornwall

Wokingham

North East Lincolnshire

Coventry

Worcestershire

Newcastle upon Tyne

Cardiff [Caerdydd GB-CRD]

Wirral

Norfolk

Croydon

Warrington

Nottingham

Conwy

Wrexham [Wrecsam GB-WRC]

Northern Ireland

Darlington

Westminster

North Lanarkshire

Derbyshire

West Sussex

North Lincolnshire

Denbighshire [Sir Ddinbych GB-DDB]

York

Newry, Mourne and Down

Derby

Shetland Islands

North Northamptonshire

Devon

North Somerset

Dumfries and Galloway

Neath Port Talbot [Castell-nedd Port Talbot GB-CTL]

Doncaster

Nottinghamshire

Dundee City

North Tyneside

Dorset

Newham

Derry and Strabane

Newport [Casnewydd GB-CNW]

Dudley

North Yorkshire

Durham, County

Oldham

Ealing

Orkney Islands

East Ayrshire

Oxfordshire

Edinburgh, City of

Pembrokeshire [Sir Benfro GB-BNF]

East Dunbartonshire

Perth and Kinross

East Lothian

Plymouth

Eilean Siar

Portsmouth

Enfield

Powys

England

Peterborough

Vale of Glamorgan, The [Bro Morgannwg GB-BMG]

East Renfrewshire

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

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.

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.

Current status: 
Following the UK government’s publication, in June 2025, of supplementary guidance for assessing the effects of downstream scope 3 emissions on climate from offshore oil and gas projects, the Rosebank and Jackdaw developers submitted (in September 2025) new Environmental Statements, including downstream emissions. Public notices have been issued of a public consultation on the developments, closing on 20 November 2025. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will then have to decide whether or not to grant consent to the projects.

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 expected 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. 

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. The Court also dismissed the concerns around failure to comply with public consultation requirements, noting that such failures were technical and unconvincing.

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.

Geography

Scotland

Recent cases