All of Britain's fossil fuel energy could be killed off

The future of new fossil fuel energy projects in the UK was under threat last night following a startling Supreme Court decision. Judges at the highest court in the land ruled in favour of anti-oil and gas campaigners who argued that a council's decision to approve drilling for oil in Surrey was unlawful.

The decision triggered a furious backlash, with politicians branding it 'lunacy' and warning that it would make the country more reliant on foreign energy. It also added to concerns that the court was 'trying to make itself a government'. Net zero campaigners argued that Surrey County Council was wrong to give UK Oil & Gas plc planning permission to build new wells at a site known as the 'Gatwick Gusher' – close to the airport – in 2019. The judges sided, by a 3-2 majority, with the argument that, when granting the licence, the council should have taken into account the pollution created by homes and businesses when oil from the site was eventually burned as fuel, such as by motorists.

The decision stacks the odds against the project, and others like it, ever receiving the go-ahead. Extinction Rebellion activist Sarah Finch, who brought the first case in 2020 on behalf of the Weald Action Group, said she was 'absolutely over the moon', while Friends of the Earth called it a 'stunning victory'. But energy companies said the decision could have profound implications for North Sea projects such as the Rosebank, Jackdaw and Cambo fields and mining schemes, such as the planned Whitehaven coal mine in Cumbria. The offshore fossil fuel industry in the UK adds £30billion to the economy, brought in £9billion in tax revenue between 2022 and 2023, and employs more than 220,000. Former energy secretary John Redwood said the UK was 'shooting itself in the foot'. He added: 'I didn't understand the judgment at all. Using energy produced in the UK will save CO2 compared to importing from across the world.'

Kwasi Kwarteng, a former business and energy secretary, said: 'Killing off the North Sea makes no sense in terms of jobs or energy security. This is a bad move'. The industry warned that if carbon emissions 'down the line' must be taken into account, it could be difficult to justify setting up any new projects. It could pave the way for green campaigners to unleash a torrent of lawsuits which could see companies having to set aside millions for potential legal challenges.

The judgment also renewed concerns about the increasing role of the Supreme Court. In 2019, it ruled that Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament was unlawful following a case brought by anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller. And last year it said the scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. Tory candidate and former business and energy secretary Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg said: 'This is patently ridiculous judgment and a further example of judicial over-reach. The Supreme Court is trying to make itself a government. We should be governed by people who are democratically elected, and not by unelected judges.' Two wells already existed at the Surrey site, but UK Oil & Gas put forward plans to build a further four, which it says would produce millions of tons of oil over 25 years. Surrey County Council conducted an environmental impact assessment before granting permission.

In the judgment, Lord Leggatt (Pictured) said 'it seems to me plain' that emissions created by burning oil extracted at the site 'are effects of the project'. UK Oil & Gas said the ruling was a 'rather perplexing' and 'counter to all prior judgments'. Sachin Oza of Reabold Resources, an investment company specialising in onshore and offshore oil and gas projects said: 'The oil that would have been produced will simply be imported.' The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said it will 'carefully consider the judgment'.

So who are the three judges behind the landmark decision? Lord Leggatt, 66, is the son of former Court of Appeal judge, George Leggatt. He attended Eton before studying philosophy at Cambridge and winning a scholarship to Harvard. He taught and worked in the US before returning to Britain to work as a barrister, specialising in commercial law. Appointed a High Court judge in 2012, his cases included a 2014 ruling that the detention policy adopted by British forces in Afghanistan was unlawful under international human rights law. He was promoted to the Court of Appeal in 2018 and then to the Supreme Court in 2020, and has been appointed as the court’s lead justice on diversity and inclusion.

Lady Rose (pictured) is one of only two female justices at the Supreme Court. Vivien Rose attended a North London comprehensive and has degrees from Oxford and Cambridge. Now 64, she spent most of her career in the Government legal service, first as an adviser at the Treasury and later at the Ministry of Defence. She then worked as part of the legal team for the Speaker of House of Commons. Her first judicial role was with the Competition Appeal Tribunal. She was named a High Court judge in 2013, and an Appeal Court judge in 2019. She was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice in 2021.

Lord Kitchin (pictured), 69, formally retired from the Supreme Court last year and yesterday’s ruling involved one of his final cases. He was previously one of the 11-strong Supreme Court panel that ruled that prime minister Boris Johnson had acted unlawfully when he suspended Parliament during Brexit wrangling.

Lord Kitchin studied natural sciences and law at Cambridge and coxed the winning Cambridge team in the 1975 Boat Race. He started work as a barrister in 1977 and specialised in intellectual property law, and became a High Court judge in 2005, an Appeal Court judge in 2011 and was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2018.

Want more stories like this from the Daily Mail? Hit the follow button above for more of the news you need.