The courts’ power to review decisions on the allocation of participating interests in the Breidablikk field in the North Sea is limited
Supreme Court judgment of 14 October 2026, HR-2026-2225-A (case no. 25-159499SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against Gulating Court of Appeal's judgment of 6 June 2025.
Vår Energi ASA (Advocate Hallvard Gilje Aarseth, assisted by Advocate Trond Eirik Sollund) v The State represented by the Ministry of Energy (The Office of the Attorney General, acting through Advocate Caroline Birgitte Pedersen Røkenes, assisted by Advocate Tolle Eldar Hoel Stabell), Equinor Energy AS, ConocoPhillips Skandinavia AS (Advocate Thomas Gjølberg Naalsund), and Petoro AS (Advocate Amund Noss).
In 2021, the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (now the Ministry of Energy) issued a decision under the Petroleum Act concerning the allocation of participating interests in the Breidablikk field. The allocation was based in part on an earlier agreement between the same licensees regarding a nearby oil field, Grane. Both fields encompass the geological main structure referred to in the case as “F”. Under the Grane agreement, the allocation depends to a significant extent on whether there is communication between the F structure and the main structure in the Breidablikk field. The Ministry concluded that no such communication exists and allocated the participating interests on that basis.
Vår Energi ASA brought an action claiming that the Ministry’s decision was invalid. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the courts may review the Ministry’s assessment of whether communication exists between the structures. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal held that the courts could not review that assessment and therefore found against Vår Energi. The Supreme Court reached the same conclusion.
The Supreme Court emphasised that, as a general rule, the courts may review the factual basis of administrative decisions. This also applies where such review requires the courts to consider complex technical or scientific issues. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that the relevant provisions of the Petroleum Act must be interpreted as precluding judicial review of factual assessments forming part of the petroleum-related evaluations underlying the Ministry’s conclusion that there is no communication between the structures. This applies even though, in the present case, the Ministry addressed the issue in the course of applying an agreement between private parties.
The judgment was delivered by a divided court. One justice took the view that the courts’ power of review is not limited.
The judgment provides guidance on the extent to which judicial review of administrative decisions may be restricted by specific statutory provisions.
Area of law: Petroleum law. Sections 1-6(b) and 4-7 of the Petroleum Act.
Key paragraphs: 100, 112-113, 126-127, 140-142.
Justices: Bull, Bergh, Høgetveit Berg, Hellerslia and Stenvik.