Plans to develop the UK’s largest untapped oilfield have been thwarted in a major climate court case.

A Scottish court ruled the previous Conservative government acted “unlawfully” when it green-lit the offshore Rosebank oilfield and smaller Jackdaw gas project.

The judge said the assessment of the projects’ climate damage failed to acknowledge the impact of burning the oil and gas, rather than just from getting them out of the ground.

The case is a victory for climate campaigners – the latest in a series of fossil fuel projects toppled in a domino effect triggered by a “game-changing” court ruling in June.

But the projects could yet still go ahead.

The new Labour administration, elected last July on a mandate to tackle climate change, must now consider the full climate impact of the so-called “downstream” emissions, and make a fresh decision, the court said.

Oil and gas still provide more than two thirds of the UK’s energy, although the volumes in Rosebank and Jackdaw would not dramatically lower UK imports. That makes any future decision on them “political”, said Dr Ewan Gibbs, energy historian at Glasgow University.

Labour could sign off on them while still sticking to its election promise of “no new licenses” for North Sea projects, as these projects already have licences, but just need final government consent.

Campaigners celebrate ‘historic win’

Philip Evans, senior campaigner at Greenpeace UK, which brought the Jackdaw case, said: “This is a historic win – the age of governments approving new drilling sites by ignoring their climate impacts is over.”

The case argued by campaign groups Greenpeace and Uplift last year was boosted by a landmark judgment from the higher Supreme Court in June, which ruled these types of emissions could no longer be omitted.

Greenpeace called it “game-changing”.

Since then, other projects like the West Cumbria coal mine were toppled on the same grounds, and the new government said it would no longer defend such projects in court.

During a hearing in November, the sites’ developers – Shell, Equinor and Ithaca Energy – said they accepted the previous approvals had in fact been unlawful.

But they argued the projects should be allowed to proceed anyway, as they were at advanced stages and the goalposts had been moved.

Why fossil fuel companies are also pleased

Today, Lord Ericht from Scotland’s Court of Session overturned the approvals.

“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,” he said.

“The decisions will be [quashed], and can be taken again, this time taking into account downstream emissions.”

In the meantime the companies are allowed to continue developing their sites, but not extract any of the oil and gas.

A spokesperson for Rosebank’s primary developer Equinor said: “We welcome today’s ruling and are pleased with the outcome which allows us to continue with progressing the Rosebank project while we await new consents.

“Rosebank is critical for the UK’s economic growth, with an estimated 77% (£6.6bn) of total direct investment benefiting UK businesses.”

Rosebank contains about 300 million barrels of oil, most of which would be exported. The smaller amounts of gas from Jackdaw were destined for UK use, but were not expected to make a dent in household bills.

A spokesperson for the government’s energy department said it will in spring issue updated guidance on environmental assessments, and companies could reapply for permissions under those terms.

They added: “Our priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea in line with our climate and legal obligations, which drives towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills, and good, long-term jobs.”

A spokesperson for Jackdaw developer Shell said: “Swift action is needed from the government so that we and other North Sea operators can make decisions about vital UK energy infrastructure.”

In Bristol, Ian Alexander is a footballing legend.

Recognised in the shops – remembered as a stalwart for Rovers, winning the third-tier title and reaching a Wembley final for lower-league clubs in 1990.

He was never nationally famous, but like so many in the game, he was playing for the love of it rather than becoming a millionaire.

But the memories are fading and muddled for the 62-year-old. Not just forgetting those he played with or against. But, at times, unable to even remember to use a fork to eat.

Suspected chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is blamed – a brain condition linked to repeated blows to the head that can only be definitely diagnosed when the brain is analysed after death.

“We are football addicts, footballers,” Alexander told Sky News.

“I don’t know about the damage it does, and it’s the damage from collisions, headers and stuff you don’t know about when you play football.”

Now the hope is the High Court uncovers how much football should be blamed.

Read more:
Hull City legend Dean Windass diagnosed with dementia
Beckham joins calls for more dementia support for footballers

Alexander is among more than 30 former players and their families taking legal action against the sport’s authorities, including the Football Association.

How much were they aware going back decades of the long-term damage caused by repeated blows to the head, concussions and repetitive heading, particularly in training?

Finding out the answer is dragging on. A year after the first hearing, they were back in court today in central London, to hear of more delays, more obstacles being put in their way by the sport’s governing body.

Martin Porter KC, representing the FA, claimed there was a lack of clear direction in the case to narrow down what is being sought from a “shed loads of documents” held by such a “venerable organisation”.

“We are in the middle of a football season, it is a very difficult time, a busy time,” Mr Porter said. “We would be putting a lot of demands on our clients to uncover information.”

That prompted an irritated response from Shaman Kapoor, the barrister representing the former players, pointing out the FA executives are not the ones playing.

We did hear the initial hint of a defence by the FA, among procedural legal arguments, highlighting health benefits of playing.

“Nobody can play sport without some risk of injury,” Mr Porter said. “Are we to discourage the playing of sport?”

But central to the case will be whether anything can be found in the FA archives going back to the 1950s showing, for example, if there was scientific evidence to show heading should have been reduced or removed from the game entirely.

The parties are due back in court in June. But Mr Kapoor became increasingly exacerbated and told the court: “The idea has been to ambush the progress of this litigation”.

For Alexander and wife Janet, the slow pace of the case is infuriating.

“Why don’t you just get the case going? Get to the bottom of it and let us get on with the rest of our life,” he said.

It is the feeling of justice, not fortunes, they seek, but enough compensation for treatment and to enjoy the life he has left.

“The professor said from your age and your symptoms and stuff, he reckons I’ve got between two and six years,” Alexander said.

“So I’ve got the back of my head. That’s what I’ve got left. And that was a year ago.” Anxiety attacks make even going to football now a struggle.

Read more from Sky News:
Chancellor backs third Heathrow runway
Captain Sir Tom Moore’s name dropped from charity

Nothing extravagant is planned, just hoping for a caravan strip around his homeland in Scotland. And more trips to neurological experts to discover just what is wrong with his brain and whether football caused it.

A tattoo inked on his left arm reads: “The mind may not remember, but the heart will never forget.”

The hope is football does not forget, with former Leeds player John Stiles leading the lobbying of the government for the football’s looming independent regulator to have powers over the long-term impact of head injuries.

The concern is of a widespread brain disease epidemic in the game and not enough being done to help the victims.

“Would you go back and do it again? My answer would be yes,” Alexander said. “I wouldn’t have changed anything in my life.

“Football was my life. I had great times.”

He just wishes it could have been safer. But whether football authorities neglected his, and other players’ health, is a matter a judge could end up determining.

The average annual water bill will rise by £26% or £123 in the next financial year alone, according to industry figures covering England and Wales.

Water UK confirmed how inflation-busting hikes, determined by the regulator Ofwat in December, would play out from 1 April when a new five-year pricing period begins.

The watchdog allowed bills to rise sharply from 2025-30, but not by as much as suppliers had wanted, to help fund badly needed infrastructure upgrades in key areas, such as storm overflows to prevent sewage spills.

Water UK, which represents the water firms, said the average water and wastewater bill would go up from £480 to £603 during 2025/26 – an increase of about £10 a month.

But the increases will be even harder to swallow for many.

Southern Water customers will see the largest in percentage terms, a 47% increase, taking their average bill to £703.

Bills for households covered by Hafren Dyfrdwy and South West Water will rise by 32%.

Thames Water’s 16 million customers face a 31% hike to £639 – a rise of £151 – at a time when the company is still scrambling to secure its financial future amid a massive debt pile that could yet tip it towards a special administration process.

Water UK explained that the rises may be higher than customers were expecting as the annual totals now included inflation calculations.

The body also said that the increases across households would also vary, depending on circumstances such as water use and whether a water meter was installed.

They will come into force at a time when consumers are facing a surge in other costs.

Industry estimates suggest another hefty increase in energy bills will be seen from April, when the energy price cap is adjusted to reflect higher wholesale prices.

Council tax is also among the bills set for above-inflation rises.

Poorer households get support

Water UK said that it recognised the impact that rising water bills would have on poorer households, pledging that more than three million would receive support worth £4.1bn over the five-year pricing period.

It urged those concerned about paying the increase to contact their supplier.

Water UK also sought to reassure customers that they would see a return, following widespread anger over historic dividends for shareholders.

Water UK said firms would invest around £20bn each year to 2030.

Read more from Sky News:
Chancellor announces backing for third Heathrow runway
Love Island star freed on bail after being jailed for dog attack

Upgrade works will include nine new reservoirs and increased capacity at 1,700 wastewater treatment works to reduce pollution and clear up rivers.

Water UK admits rises ‘will be difficult’

Water UK chief executive David Henderson said: “We understand increasing bills is never welcome and, while we urgently need investment in our water and sewage infrastructure, we know that for many this increase will be difficult.

“Water companies will invest a record £20bn in 2025-26 to support economic growth, build more homes, secure our water supplies and end sewage entering our rivers and seas.”

The industry has argued that constraints on bills over 15 years, coupled with climate change and population growth, have been responsible for the growing pollution crisis.

Regulator says bill rises are ‘challenge’

Ofwat has denied this, saying companies must take responsibility.

Its chief executive David Black said of the bill rises ahead: “We recognise the challenge that some customers are facing with increasing financial pressures and understand that the water sector is not the only area where customers are faced with rising costs.

“While water bills will vary depending on the circumstances of each household, the average increase forecasted for 2025/26 will be 26% or £123.

“We have pushed companies to double the amount of support over the next five-year period and strongly encourage customers who are struggling to pay their water bills to contact their water company to access this.”