Firm says fracking is its ‘human right’
Ineos sues ministers as it seeks review of ban
ENERGY giant Ineos is suing the Scottish Government after claiming the fracking ban has affected its business – and breaches its human rights.
The firm, led by Jim Ratcliffe and which runs the Grangemouth refinery, says the Scottish Government acted unlawfully in not supporting the development of unconventional oil and gas, which includes fracking, in Scotland.
Ministers announced the ban in October 2017, and it was then passed by MSPs. Ineos is seeking a judicial review to have the decision set aside.
The action, brought by Ineos Upstream and Reach Coal Seam Gas, seeks as yet undisclosed damages for ‘just satisfaction’ for an alleged violation of an article of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It claims the fracking ban breaches article one of protocol one of the convention which states that ‘every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions’. After giving the green light yesterday to a full hearing of the case, a judge ordered the firms to further explain their claim.
Lord Pentland said that for a matter of such importance to the parties and the public interest, it seemed ‘hardly satisfactory’ the claim was in an ‘undeveloped state’.
Anna Poole, QC, for the firms, said it was proposed to offer a schedule which would give more detail of the claim.
But she told the Court of Session that because it was such a large exercise, it required a team of people to work on valuations, rather just one individual.
She said that the Scottish parliament had been made aware of the effect of the ban, adding: ‘One would hope the effect on the business of the petitioners is not a surprise to them.’
The firms claim that their business interests were adversely affected by the actions of the Government.
James Mure, QC, for the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Scottish ministers, said that a May court date for the hearing of the judicial review was ‘the opportunity for the parties to have a substantive hearing on the legal issues’.
As well as last year’s decision on fracking, the firms extended their legal challenge to a Scottish Government moratorium on goaheads for unconventional oil and gas in 2015 and other decisions linked to it.
The Lord Advocate had argued that the challenge brought against the 2015 decisions was time-barred because it was brought long after the expiry of a threemonth time limit.
The firms say to give them an effective remedy these decisions must be set aside.