Appeal By Greenpeace Limited Against The Advocate General And Another And Bp Exploration Operating Company Limited And And Another
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord President,Lord Menzies,Lord Pentland |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] CSIH 53 |
| Date | 07 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | XA34/20 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 07 October 2021 |
FIRST DIVISION, INNER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2021] CSIH 53
XA34/20
Lord President
Lord Menzies
Lord Pentland
OPINION OF THE COURT
delivered by LORD CARLOWAY, the LORD PRESIDENT
in the appeal under regulation 16 of the Offsho re Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines
(Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999
by
GREENPEACE LIMITED
Appellants
against
(First) THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (representing the Secretary of State for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy); and (Second) THE OIL AND GAS AUTHORITY;
Respondents
and
(First) BP EXPLORATION OPERATING COMPANY LIMITED; and (Third) ITHACA
ENERGY (UK) LIMITED;
Interested Parties
______________
Appellants: Crawford QC, Welsh; Harper Macleod LLP
First Respondent: Dean of Faculty (Dunlop QC), MacGregor QC; The Office of the Advocate
General
Second Respondents: McClelland; Drummond Miller LLP
Interested Parties: Cormack QC (sol adv); Pinsent Masons LLP
7 October 2021
Introduction
[1] Th is is an appeal against decisions which permit the first and third interested parties
2
to exploit the Vorlich oil field in the North Sea. The Secretary of State’s decision was to
agree that consent should be granted by the OGA (Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-
lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 reg 5(A1)). The OGA
subsequently granted consent (Petroleum Act 1998 s 3(1)).
[2] The first issue is whether BP and Ithaca, the Secretary of State and the OGA complied
with th e requirements for publicity of applications and environmental information as set out
in the 1999 Regulations as these should be purposively interpreted in light of the Directive
2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private proj ects on the environment (as amended by 2014/52/EU). In
addition, two challenges are made to the substance of, as distinct from the procedure
leading to, the Secretary of State’s decision. Th e first relates to arithmetical errors relating to
greenhou se gas emissions in BP’s environmental statement. The second is whether the
environ mental impact, not of the exploitation process but of the consumption thereafter of
the extracted and refined oil, is a relevant consideration.
[3] There is an addition al issue about the extent to which these matters have already
been determined, either in proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales or in an
earlier petition for judicial review in Scotland. In relation to the failure to take into account
the consumption of the oil, the respondents and the interested parties plead res judicata. Th e
final issue is whether any procedural contraventions should result, as a matter for the
exercise of the court’s discretion, in reduction of the agreement and consent for an oil field
which has cost £230 million to develop and has now been operating for some nine months.
European Union Directive
[4] Th e EU Directive of 13 December 2011, on th e assessment of the effects of certain
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others; Coyne and Another v an Bord Pleanála and Others
...(Case C-2/07) EU:2008:113. 366 Ecologistas en Accion-CODA (Case C-142/07) EU:C:2008:445. 367 Greenpeace Limited v Advocate General [2021] CSIH 53. The question there was whether the consumption of oil and gas by an end user ought to be assessed as a direct or indirect significant effect of ......
-
Petition By Fair Play For Women Limited For Judicial Review
...expressed in the consequent consent order, was sufficient to form a determination in law (Greenpeace Ltd v Advocate General for Scotland [2021] CSIH 53, 2021 SLT 1303 at paragraph 61). It was the correct determination in law and there was no reason to suppose that the 1920 Act fell to be co......
-
R (on the application of Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council
...by the Inner House of the Court of Session (the Lord President, Lord Menzies and Lord Pentland) in Greenpeace Ltd. v Advocate General [2021] CSIH 53; 2021 S.L.T. 1303 – a case concerning equivalent legislative provisions. There the court had to consider whether an environmental impact asses......
-
An Taisce — National Trust for Ireland v an Bord Pleanála, The Minister for Communications, Climate Action and The Environment, Ireland and The Attorney General
...County Council [2020] EWHC 3566 (Admin) and the Scottish Court of Session's decision in Greenpeace Limited v. The Advocate General [2021] CSIH 53 to guide this Court on how the question of remoteness should be applied. The Board and Notice Party maintain that on a correct application of th......