header-logo header-logo

26 July 2024 / Douglas Maxwell
Issue: 8081 / Categories: Features , Environment , ESG , Climate change litigation
printer mail-detail

Climate change litigation: Divided but ruled

183112
‘Downstream’ CO₂ emissions & causation: Dr Douglas Maxwell analyses the judgments of a divided Supreme Court
  • An in-depth explainer of the Supreme Court decision in Finch, including the background to the case, as well as the majority and dissenting judgments.
  • Includes an analysis of the decision, explaining the most likely impacts the decision will have on other projects and future climate change litigation.

On 20 June 2024, the Supreme Court handed down (a 3-2 majority) judgment in R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council and others [2024] UKSC 20, [2024] All ER (D) 71 (Jun). Lord Leggatt, who wrote the judgment for the majority, described it as ‘plain’ that the requirement to consider the ‘direct or indirect... effects of the project’ to extract oil meant that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) should include not just the greenhouse gas emissions directly arising from the project but also an assessment of emissions that will occur ‘downstream’ (sometimes referred

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll