Issue:
8021
/
Categories:
Features
,
ESG
,
Environment
,
Climate change litigation
,
Procedure & practice
,
CPR
Is litigation in its current form consistent with the UK’s carbon reduction commitments? Dr Mike Wilkinson & Eimear McCann make the case for rule reform
- Litigation can be hugely carbon inefficient.
- Many clients will want or need to pursue carbon reduction strategies, sometimes due to personal environmental beliefs, but also to meet ESG obligations.
- The courts can already find ways to litigate more sustainably, including through e-service, e-disclosure, e-bundles or hearings (or parts of them) being held virtually.
- However, such carbon reduction measures are far from routine and if we are to meet our legal obligations to transition to net neutrality, a shift in mindset is needed.
Litigants pay the courts not insignificant sums to litigate their civil disputes, not only through taxes but often through an issue fee of 5% of their claim’s value, capped at £10,000. If clients want or need to reduce the carbon emissions produced by litigation, neither the courts nor their lawyers should stand in their way.
Many
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=4a74b61f_1)
