Oceana UK v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor
The court held that the approach taken by OPRED and the First Defendant to appropriate assessment under regulation 5 of the 2001 Regulations was lawful and reasonable in the context of a multi-stage consent process. The assessments were precautionary, considered accident and climate change risks to the extent possible, and properly deferred detailed assessment to later stages when more information would be available. The court found no gaps or lacunae in assessment, and cogent reasons were given for departing from expert advice. The claim was dismissed.
- 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 Regulations Assessment, Judicial Review, Precautionary Principle, Oil and Gas Licensing, Climate Change, Cumulative Effects, Regulatory Consent, Appropriate Assessment
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 Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 were legally compliant
- 2 Whether the First Defendant failed to assess the impact of oil and gas industry accidents on marine protected areas
- 3 Whether the First Defendant failed to assess the impact of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions on marine protected areas
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the approach taken by OPRED and the First Defendant to appropriate assessment under regulation 5 of the 2001 Regulations was lawful and reasonable in the context of a multi-stage consent process. The assessments were precautionary, considered accident and climate change risks to the extent possible, and properly deferred detailed assessment to later stages when more information would be available. The court found no gaps or lacunae in assessment, and cogent reasons were given for departing from expert advice. The claim was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed
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