Oceana UK has moved forward with its legal challenge over fossil fuel exploration licences in UK waters, filing its case at the High Court. In response to the initial threat to take the government to court over the harm to UK seas, ahead of the election, the previous government stated that it would defend the decision.

Oceana and other members of the Ocean Alliance Against Offshore Drilling have now written to Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, urging the new government to accelerate the UK’s move away from fossil fuels and concede Oceana’s case.

Oceana UK, who is represented by law firm Leigh Day, say the previous government’s decision to issue 31 new oil and gas licences in May 2024 was unlawful because it failed to consider the extreme impact of oil spills on marine life, as well as on several other grounds.

The letter – signed by Greenpeace UK, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Rewilding Britain, Oceana and others – highlights Oceana UK’s legal challenge to the new oil and gas licences, and asks that the Secretary of State ‘brings an end’ to the licences which overlap with several areas designated for wildlife.

It invites the government to concede the claim, which has now been lodged with the High Court, and signal a ‘clear departure’ from the reliance on fossil fuels, which it argues had been the case under the previous government.

Naomi Tilley, Campaign Lead at Oceana UK, said:

“These licences were issued with a shocking disregard for expert advice, as well as our seas, climate and future. With its commitment to end oil and gas licences, the new government has started down a world-leading path, and now it has a crucial opportunity to honour the spirit of that ambition, by calling time once and for all on these licences and the destruction and degradation caused by Big Oil running roughshod over our ocean.” 

Leigh Day’s Rowan Smith, who represents Oceana UK along with Carol Day, said:

“Our client is legitimately frustrated that advice from expert bodies set up to conserve the marine environment was effectively ignored; advice which condemns the plans for further licensing due to the damage drilling would cause to marine wildlife and the knock-on climate effects from the greenhouse gases generated when the extracted fossil fuels are used. We are prepared to argue, on behalf of Oceana UK, that the assessments on protected sites failed to properly acknowledge these issues. However, our client hopes that its letter to the Secretary of State, drawing attention to this case, will ultimately persuade the government to revoke these licences.”

Richard Benwell, Chief Executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, who signed the letter, said: 

“New oil and gas licensing in and around Marine Protected Areas poses serious and even irreversible risks to marine wildlife and habitats and is utterly at odds with any common sense understanding of a protected area. It also means directly ignoring warnings from government scientific advisors who have strongly advised against fossil fuel developments in these sensitive sites. The government should withdraw licensing areas that overlap with Marine Protected Areas and regulate to end all damaging industrial activities in these critical areas for wildlife, including overfishing and fossil fuel industries.”

The claim will challenge the ‘Appropriate Assessments’ made by the former Secretary of State under the Conservative administration, arguing they largely ignored advice from independent government experts about the potential effects on sensitive Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).  

These bodies – the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England – advised that they could not conclude that the drilling will have no adverse effect on the designated sites. More than a third of the licences overlap with MPAs, which were established to protect habitats and species that are essential for ocean health.

Oceana UK also argues that the assessments were flawed in several other ways, such as ignoring the impact of potential oil spills and overlooking the significant impact of the climate crisis on both the marine wildlife and the wider climate.

The grounds of the claim argue that the then Secretary of State:

• Failed to consider the impact of oil and gas industry accidents (including oil spills and discharges) on MPAs and their conservation features. 
• Failed to consider the ongoing impact of the climate crisis on the marine environments set to be impacted by these licenses, and failed to consider the full climate impact of the licensed activity, including scope 3 emissions (indirect emissions, such as from the use of the extracted oil and gas).
• Relied on a flawed assumption that only 50% of licensed drilling will actually take place.
• Failed adequately to assess the cumulative impacts of the licensed activity on the relevant sites.
• Failed to pay due regard to the advice of the JNCC and Natural England in relation to the matters raised by several of the grounds above.