The campaigner who won a landmark Supreme Court ruling on onshore oil and gas emissions is urging the prime minister to resist calls to overturn the judgement.

Sarah Finch, on behalf of the Weald Action Group, was responding to recommendations in a report to government by the economist, John Fingleton.

His review of civil and defence nuclear regulation in November 2025 recommended reversing the Finch judgement for low-carbon infrastructure.

In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, Ms Finch said she was concerned by  the prime minister’s remarks in a speech that the Fingleton recommendations should be applied across “the entire industrial strategy”.

Finch judgement

The Finch case set a precedent that decisionmakers must take into account the carbon emissions from fossil fuel production.

The ruling led to the quashing of approvals for the Biscathorpe and Wressle oil developments, consent for a new coal mine at Whitehaven in Cumbria and decisions by the Sunak government on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields.

It also led to changes in government guidance on the assessment of the climate impacts of new offshore oil and gas developments.

But John Fingleton said the government should legislate to overturn the Finch judgement (his recommendation 15).

He said the judgement might create a need to assess greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear developments multiple times along the supply chain.

In her letter to Keir Starmer, Ms Finch said:

“there’s no need for developers to repeat assessments that have already been done.”

She said any information provided in environmental impact assessments (EIA) earlier in the supply chain could be relied on again.

“Legislating to replace the current EIA regime would undermine the substantial work undertaken in developing the new guidance.”

She added:

“Fingleton seems to miss the key point that a thorough assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, including downstream emissions, is actually helpful for nuclear and other forms of low-carbon energy.

“It provides a transparent and firm basis for arguing the (not universally accepted) pro-climate credentials of such development, because it enables the full benefits of the much lower greenhouse gas emissions to be taken into account in comparison to energy produced from fossil fuels.”

Riskier legal challenges

Ms Finch also argued against another Fingleton proposal to make legal challenges risker for claimants (recommendation 20).

It recommended raising and, in some cases, removing the cost cap for judicial reviews (currently £5,000 for individuals and £10,000 for organisations).

The review also recommended that legal challenges to Nationally Strategic Infrastructure Projects should be limited to a “single bite of the cherry”.

Ms Finch said the judicial review process and the cap on costs, adopted by the Aarhus convention in 1998, were vital to allowing people to challenge public bodies that made mistakes.

She said:

“I was able to bring my judicial review challenge because of the Aarhus costs cap. Had we faced the prospect of paying the other side’s full costs, the Weald Action Group would not have embarked on the case.

“And our application for judicial review was refused twice and we went to the Court of Appeal. We took several bites of the cherry – and went on to win what was an important ruling.”

She said the many legal challenges relating to environmental impact assessments were not because challenging decisions were too easy.

“There is already a high bar to being able to bring a judicial review case. Already cases deemed without merit can’t proceed.

“The vast majority don’t make it past the permission stage. The reason that claims are permitted and do succeed is that developers’ consultants sometimes omit information or minimise impacts in a way that is unlawful.

“If the developer does their job properly, there is no risk of successful legal challenge.

Wider recommendations

Ms Finch said the Nuclear Regulatory Review had been commissioned to review civil and defence nuclear regulation and to propose reforms to regulate nuclear energy.

She said:

“Yet the Prime Minister has said he wishes to see the recommendations applied across the entire industrial strategy.

“Given the specific remit of the Review, I don’t understand why its recommendations would be applied beyond the nuclear sector.”

Fingleton Review