Greenpeace meaning

Key developlments in 2024 2024 has seen notable movement in climate change litigation across the UK and internationally. In the UK, attention has largely centred on whether proposed fossil fuel projects’ Scope 3 emissions were properly addressed within Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) at the planning stage. Internationally, energy-sector disputes have focused on actions against governments for alleged breaches of climate obligations under domestic law or binding international frameworks, alongside claims against corporations arising from their perceived contribution to climate change. For further background on climate litigation generally, including many of the matters noted below, see Practice Note: Climate change litigation. Requirement to consider Scope 3 emissions in EIAs Climate litigation commenced in January 2024 with the ruling in Greenpeace Nordic and Nature & Youth v Energy Ministry (The North Sea Fields Case). The case challenged the Norwegian government’s omission of Scope 3 emissions when approving development plans for three North Sea oil & gas fields. The Oslo District Court ruled in favour of the claimants, overturning the...

This Practice Note outlines which biotechnological inventions may and may not be patented. It cites Directive 98/44/EC (commonly called the Biotechnology Directive) and Schedule A2 to the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977), which allow patents for biotechnological inventions while setting key exceptions. Those exceptions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice in cases including Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace and Monsanto v Cefetra. The Note also reviews exclusions from patentability under Article 52(b) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and pertinent European Patent Office (EPO) decisions, Tomatoes I, Tomatoes II and Broccoli II. It also takes account of the 2017 European Commission Notice on biotechnological inventions. Patenting biotechnological inventions As a general rule, biotechnological inventions are patentable. Although neither PA 1977 nor the EPC imposes a blanket prohibition, specific provisions control when such inventions can be protected (see: The regulatory framework for biotechnology patents below). Additionally, in practice, some biotechnological subject-matter, even if not expressly barred, may fail the standard thresholds of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability....

This Practice Note centres on the planning regime for new nuclear build facilities. It outlines the policy foundations for consenting new nuclear plants, the routes for appeal and judicial review, and the effects of the UK’s departure from the EU on nuclear planning. For general information on nuclear licensing and regulation, see: Nuclear licensing and regulation—overview. Further consents, including licensing from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), are covered in Practice Note: Operating under a nuclear site licence. Planning policy Energy National Policy Statements The government’s policy on major infrastructure is expressed through National Policy Statements (NPSs), which are statutory documents made under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008). NPSs guide the Secretary of State when determining development consent applications for energy infrastructure of national significance. Between late 2009 and early 2010, the government issued six draft NPSs for consultation. These included: an Overarching National Policy Statement for energy NPS (EN-1) (updated in 2025 and in force from 6 January 2026), and ...

Test of insolvency Section 421(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) sets out the statutory yardstick for deciding whether a deceased’s estate is insolvent: an estate is insolvent where, once every asset has been realised, the proceeds are insufficient to discharge in full all debts and other liabilities attaching to the estate. By contrast, an estate is not insolvent if all debts and liabilities can be paid, even where no legacies are capable of being honoured. In a genuinely insolvent estate, beneficiaries take nothing, and the debts and liabilities will not be settled in full, if at all. For illustration, Elizabeth’s estate comprises a single bank account holding £50,000. There is no IHT to pay because the full basic nil rate band is available. A funeral plan exists to cover the funeral expenses. The estate’s debts and liabilities total £12,000. Under her Will, Elizabeth gifted £40,000 apiece to The Green Party and Greenpeace. Although the estate lacks sufficient assets to satisfy the legacies in full (so the gifts...