09 October 2026
A New Frontier for Project-Based Climate Litigation
On 7 October 2026, the High Court of Australia held, by three judges to two, that a New South Wales (NSW) planning authority must consider conditions to limit a coal mine’s scope 3 emissions. This meant the authority could not simply say they had considered those emissions, representing 98% of the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – they had to show they had considered planning conditions that would minimise them. Although much of the Australian apex High Court ruling turns on the interpretation of very specific NSW statutory language, it nevertheless has important implications for climate litigation elsewhere in the world, including in Europe. Continue reading >>
0 
13 July 2026
Heatwaves and Legal Remedies
Europe suffered an unprecedented heatwave this June, with debilitating effects felt across various walks of life: thousands of deaths, particularly among the elderly, individuals and families suffering in “heat-trap” apartments, hospitals full and caught unprepared, school closures, and productivity losses. Adaptation measures are indispensable for coping with these soaring temperatures, which have cost lives and severely affected people’s well-being. However, rights-based litigation involving adaptation in Europe has until recently been notable by its absence. Continue reading >>
0
15 November 2024
Into Reverse Gear
The recent Hague Court of Appeal judgment, in the appeal brought by Shell against the first instance decision in favour of the NGO Milieudefensie, held that Shell is legally obliged to reduce its scope 3 emissions, but did not order Shell to reduce them by 45%, or indeed any percentage. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on climate change litigation against corporations beyond just the Netherlands. That impact will be all the greater if the losing parties, Milieudefensie and others, do not appeal. Continue reading >>
0
11 April 2024
The Meaning of Carbon Budget within a Wide Margin of Appreciation
Although the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment discusses a number of rights of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Article 6 (right of access to a court), Article 2 (right to life), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the focus of this blog post is on its discussion of Article 8 (right to private, home and family life). The question raised by that discussion is whether the judgment is one that will “frighten the horses” and lead to oppositional cries of judicial overreach around the separation of powers, or if it is more an unexceptional case of “move on, nothing to see here.” My argument is that the judgment is mostly the latter but that it has what, in computer gaming terms, is known as an “Easter egg” – a hidden element included by the developers to surprise and reward those who look carefully. That could turn out to be more controversial. Continue reading >>
0