As 2024 draws to a close, we look back on the most impactful judgments that the law courts gave to the world this year.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, the law courts gave to me…
12 November will be remembered as the day the Dutch Court of Appeal quashed the order against the oil company Shell to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 45% in Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc.. The Court also confirmed however that corporates have a duty to transition to a net zero business model by 2050.1
At the 11th hour before the winter break, the Court of Appeal gave judgment on whether a case brought by Nepalese and Bangladeshi migrant workers against companies in the Dyson group should be heard in England in Limbu and others v Dyson. The case concerns allegations of modern slavery in Malaysian factories supplying the Dyson group. The Court of Appeal gave the green light, opening the way for the first civil trial against English companies for acts committed by their overseas suppliers.2
10 is the number of locks and sluices along the Manchester Ship Canal, whose owners won a victory in the UK Supreme Court against a water company that had been pumping sewage into the canal: the Court held that a private action for damages was permitted, opening the flood gates for future litigation against public utilities over sewage pollution.3
9 years after issuing their claim against a subsidiary of Shell, two Nigerian communities whose environments have been allegedly devastated by oil pollution reached a milestone in the English Court of Appeal, which decided that the case could proceed even though it was impossible to prove that 100% of the damage had been caused by Shell.4
Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the right to private and family life, was at the centre of a landmark judgment by the European Court of Human Rights against Switzerland in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland. The Court found the Alpine State to have violated the rights of older female citizens by failing to take credible action against climate change.5
7 of New Zealand's largest energy and mining companies are the defendants in a case brought by Māori elder Mike Smith, which the Supreme Court of New Zealand has allowed to proceed to a full trial, holding there was an arguable case that the companies were liable for their contribution to climate change.6
6 is the number of gases that cause global warming: such greenhouse gases have been classified by the Hawai'i Supreme Court as constituting "pollutants" for the purposes of insurance policies excluding losses arising from pollution. The decision is far-reaching, as it may prevent companies claiming on their insurance for losses arising from climate change7.
The 5 oceans on our planet fall within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which gave an advisory opinion holding that greenhouse gas emissions constitute "pollution of the marine environment" under international law, and hence that states have an obligation to reduce emissions within their borders and maritime zones.
4 grounds were cited in the English High Court's decision to quash the planning permission for a new coal mine in Cumbria. At the heart of all of them was the Secretary of State's failure to take account of the significant likely effect of greenhouse gases that would be released by burning coal from the proposed mine. The Court thereby applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court earlier this year in Finch, set out directly below8.
3 to 2 was the majority by which the UK Supreme Court quashed the decision to grant planning permission for a new oil well in Surrey in a case brought by Sarah Finch. The ruling establishes the far-reaching precedent that environmental impact assessments for similar projects must consider not only the greenhouse gas emissions generated on site, but also those arising from consumers' use of the end product (in this case, oil)9.
2 years have passed since the High Court first ruled that the government's decarbonisation plan was in breach of the Climate Change Act 2008. Now, for the second time, the Court has found the government's plan wanting, specifically in its failure to adopt policies and proposals that will meet the legally binding carbon reduction targets10.
1 minister was found by the High Court of South Africa to have failed to give adequate consideration to public health and the environment when he approved a plan to procure new coal-fired power. The Court quashed the plan for breaching citizens' constitutional rights, setting a landmark precedent for challenges to environmentally harmful projects in the country11.
We wish you a happy Christmas and a purpose-driven New Year!