We went to court to #StopRosebank - and won.

The Rosebank oil field is not compatible with a safe climate or liveable future. Together we can stop this project.

Last September, the previous UK government approved the development of the controversial Rosebank oil field. Rosebank is not compatible with a safe climate or liveable future.

We believed that this decision is not just a disaster for climate, and morally and economically wrong, but unlawful.
Claims that drilling Rosebank is compatible with the UK’s obligations and a safe climate don't add up - and we proved it in court.


There were two cases to #StopRosebank, one by Uplift, the other by Greenpeace UK. Both will be heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

The court has ruled the Rosebank oil field unlawful and its approval has been overturned. The ruling states 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”.

This is a monumental victory in the fight for a liveable future for all. Thank you to all who have supported us, especially to the 100,000 people who supported the court case. 

The government now has the chance to remake the decision after their oil & gas consultation concludes in the Spring.  In the meantime, no oil or gas can be extracted from the field.

    The case is being supported by over 90,000 individuals and groups such as 350.org, Extinction Rebellion, Oceana and WWF.

    Timeline

    Sept 2023
    UK government approves Rosebank oil field
    Dec 2023
    Court cases filed
    Aug 2024
    The UK government admits that the decision was unlawful
    Sep 2024
    Case permissions granted on all grounds
    Equinor and Ithaca confirm they are defending the case
    12-15 Nov 2024
    Case hearing
    30 Jan 2025
    Court rules Rosebank oil field unlawful and approval overturned.

    The grounds

    Uplift and Greenpeace have both filed judicial review challenges to the government’s decision to approve Rosebank. The cases argue that the decisions of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) are unlawful because:

    • Regulator's complete lack of transparency: The North Sea Transitional Authority (NSTA) has failed to give any reasons at all, let alone any rational ones, for its decision to grant consent to the development. The cases challenge the complete lack of transparency from the NSTA, particularly around what is involved in its net zero test and how it could have concluded that Rosebank passed this test.

    • Emissions from burning the oil: The previous government failed to consider combustion emissions caused by burning Rosebank’s oil and gas when assessing its environmental impact. Despite the fact that Rosebank contains almost 500 million barrels of oil and gas, the burning of which will produce more CO2 than the annual emissions of the world’s 28 lowest-income countries combined, the previous government ignored the emissions that come from burning the fossil fuels that Rosebank will produce.

    • Impacts on our seas: The last government has failed to adequately assess the marine impacts of Rosebank, including minimising the impacts on a Marine Protected Area (MPA). We argue that Rosebank will significantly hinder the conservation objectives of the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt which is a Nature Conservation MPA.
    SEE SUPPORTersRead the full briefing

    Join us

    Our website uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you agree to our privacy policy.
    Close