Oceana UK v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor [2025] EWHC 3146 (Admin) (28 November 2025)
The Secretary of State lawfully conducted appropriate assessments under regulation 5 of the 2001 Regulations as part of a multi-stage consent process. Known and sufficiently identifiable effects were assessed; effects not yet capable of meaningful assessment may lawfully be deferred to later stages. The assessments met the legal threshold for validity, applying the precautionary principle and relevant case law. No Wednesbury error was established. The claim is dismissed.
- Citation
- [2025] EWHC 3146 (Admin)
- Parties
- Claimant: Oceana UK; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; Second Defendant: Oil and Gas Authority (North Sea Transition Authority); Interested Party: Albion Energy Ltd; Interested Party: Bridge Petroleum Ltd; Interested Party: Dcarbonx Ltd; Interested Party: Deltic Energy PLC; Interested Party: Finder Energy UK Ltd; Interested Party: Hartshead Resources Ltd; Interested Party: Horizon Resources Limited; Interested Party: INEOS UK SNS Ltd; Interested Party: Neptune E&P Ltd; Interested Party: ONE-Dyas UK Limited; Interested Party: Orcadian Energy (CNS) Ltd; Interested Party: Perenco UK Ltd; Interested Party: Petrogas North Sea Limited; Interested Party: Bridge Petroleum 2 Limited; Interested Party: Dana Petroleum (E&P) Limited; Interested Party: Horizon Energy Acquisition Limited; Interested Party: Reabold Southern North Sea Limited; Interested Party: Shell UK Limited; Interested Party: Meridian Resources UK Limited; Interested Party: Comtrack (UK) Limited; Interested Party: TotalEnergies E&P UK Limited; Interested Party: Kistos Energy Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Habitats Directive, Appropriate Assessment, Petroleum Licensing, Judicial Review, Precautionary Principle, Multi Stage Consent, Marine Protected Areas
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Oceana UK
Claimant
Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
First Defendant
Oil and Gas Authority (North Sea Transition Authority)
Second Defendant
Albion Energy Ltd
Interested Party
Bridge Petroleum Ltd
Interested Party
Dcarbonx Ltd
Interested Party
Deltic Energy PLC
Interested Party
Finder Energy UK Ltd
Interested Party
Hartshead Resources Ltd
Interested Party
Horizon Resources Limited
Interested Party
INEOS UK SNS Ltd
Interested Party
Neptune E&P Ltd
Interested Party
ONE-Dyas UK Limited
Interested Party
Orcadian Energy (CNS) Ltd
Interested Party
Perenco UK Ltd
Interested Party
Petrogas North Sea Limited
Interested Party
Bridge Petroleum 2 Limited
Interested Party
Dana Petroleum (E&P) Limited
Interested Party
Horizon Energy Acquisition Limited
Interested Party
Reabold Southern North Sea Limited
Interested Party
Shell UK Limited
Interested Party
Meridian Resources UK Limited
Interested Party
Comtrack (UK) Limited
Interested Party
TotalEnergies E&P UK Limited
Interested Party
Kistos Energy Limited
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appropriate assessments under regulation 5 of the 2001 Regulations were legally compliant
- 2 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully agreed to the grant of Petroleum Act licences
- 3 Whether the assessments failed to consider oil and gas industry accidents, climate change impacts, cumulative effects, and expert advice
Ratio Decidendi
The Secretary of State lawfully conducted appropriate assessments under regulation 5 of the 2001 Regulations as part of a multi-stage consent process. Known and sufficiently identifiable effects were assessed; effects not yet capable of meaningful assessment may lawfully be deferred to later stages. The assessments met the legal threshold for validity, applying the precautionary principle and relevant case law. No Wednesbury error was established. The claim is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
Orders
- Claim for judicial review dismissed
- No relief granted to claimant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment