header-logo header-logo

26 July 2024
Issue: 8081 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Climate change litigation
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Climate change litigation after Finch

183112
The Finch ruling on ‘downstream’ emissions in environmental impact assessments is a seminal judgment by the Supreme Court

Writing in this week’s NLJ, Dr Douglas Maxwell, Henderson Chambers, analyses the majority and dissenting judgments in depth and assesses the likely impact of the case.

Maxwell writes: ‘Much has been made of the potential for wider implications and the degree to which the decision of the majority follows a pattern where judges are increasingly open to arguments that legal instruments encompass climate change considerations.’

As Maxwell notes, the decision has already had an impact on two major projects. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll