The pursuer seeks to interdict the defenders from approaching within 500 metres of, or boarding or attempting to board, four offshore installations: Brent Alpha, Brent Bravo, Brent Charlie and Brent Delta. The four installations are at various stages of operation and decommissioning. On 14 October 2019, two Greenpeace protesters boarded Brent Alpha without permission in order to protest against the proposed method of decommissioning the platforms in the Brent oil field.

The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) is the legislative instrument regulating international co-operation on environmental protection in the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of Disused Offshore Installations (Decision 98/3) provides that the dumping, and the leaving wholly or partly in place, of disused offshore installations within the maritime area is prohibited. As part of its decommissioning programme, the pursuer is seeking permits for derogations in terms of Decision 98/3. The defenders are concerned that, if the structures are left in the ocean as the pursuer proposes, they may degrade and result in pollution of the marine environment. They complain that there has been inadequate assessment of the risks.

Under ss 21 and 23 of the Petroleum Act 1987 (UK), Parliament has made provision for a 500 metre safety zone around offshore installations, which can be entered only for purposes specified in reg 21H of the Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (Management and Administration) Regulations 1995 (UK) (SI 1995/738), or with the consent of the 'duty holder' (the pursuer in this case). Entry to the zone other than for those purposes, or pursuant to an exemption from the requirement to observe it, is an offence. In relation to the 500 metre safety zone, the defenders submitted that international law - arts 60.4 and 60.5 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) - required that any such zone must be 'necessary' for safety reasons, and that it had not been demonstrated that enforcement of the safety zone for which provision was made by statute was necessary in this case.

Held: The motion for interim interdict is granted.

The following matters demonstrate that the restriction imposed by the grant of interim interdict is necessary and therefore proportionate. First, a restriction is sought in relation to protest on private property, which is, at least, a very significant factor supporting the proportionality of the restriction. Second, the question of disruption is of significance in this case. The potential for disruption arises particularly in the context of a protest in a dangerous environment. Third, the existing statutory provisions are of significance in demonstrating that the interference imposed by way of interim interdict is proportionate.

The 500 metre zone is the subject of primary legislation. It is not open to challenge in this Court on the basis of any purported incompatibility with UNCLOS. Articles 60.4 and 60.5 of UNCLOS contemplate the creation of safety zones of up to 500 metres. Any protest within the 500 metre zone is likely to constitute a criminal offence. It is significant that Parliament has created the offence. It is relevant to the question as to the extent to which the defenders' conduct is unlawful in domestic law. The offence appears to have been created with a view to protecting the safety of workers and installations.

The pursuer has not only made out a prima facie case, but has demonstrated that its case is likely to succeed. So far as the balance of convenience is concerned, that favours the pursuer. The defenders have no right or title to occupy the installations, and the pursuer has raised safety concerns of substance. The defenders have a wide variety of other locations open to them at which to protest.