Global Trends in Climate Litigation

Grantham Institute report on climate litigation trends

On 25 June 2025, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment published its seventh annual "Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot' report (the “Report”). The Report focuses on developments in global climate change litigation over the calendar year 2024 through to May 2025.

The Report explains that climate litigation has been evolving and maturing, with more cases reaching apex courts in 2024. The claims brought were initiated against a wider range of actors, including both public and private entities and cover wide-ranging topics such as climate strategies, climate-washing, financed emissions, and climate-related damage. It further observes that Courts are increasingly recognising that companies may have responsibilities regarding their emissions' consequences, but they remain cautious about imposing binding emissions reduction targets or plans on companies. More strategic litigation on the standard of care to which companies should be held is expected, especially in high-emitting sectors.

The Report also notes that Courts have played a crucial role in clarifying legal boundaries in sustainability-related claims. Climate litigation is increasingly influenced by wider political and regulatory shifts on ESG topics, with more non-climate-aligned cases being brought against governments and companies. As climate litigation continues to shape attitudes and actions across various stakeholder groups, it is becoming increasingly important for businesses to understand and actively engage with the evolving and complex landscape of climate litigation.

See our blog post for further analysis.

International courts

Inter American court of human rights advisory opinion on climate change related obligations 

On 3 July 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the “Court”) issued its opinion on the obligations of States to respond to the climate emergency under international human rights law, finding that States have a duty to mitigate and address environmental harms threatening human rights (such as climate change), including by adopting national laws, policies and actions (the “Opinion”).

The Opinion confirmed that the right to a healthy environment extends to the right to a stable and healthy climate. States have an obligation to adopt necessary effective measures to prevent serious or irreversible harm to the environment (including climate change) and to prevent connected human rights impacts. To fulfil these obligations, States are required to apply a high standard of due diligence based on scientific evidence when developing and enforcing climate-related policies. There are specific duties to prevent harm to vulnerable groups who are at risk of suffering disproportionately severe climate change impacts.

The Opinion noted the crucial role of businesses in addressing climate change. It considers States’ obligations to adopt effective domestic legislative and other measures as, in short, an obligation that must be fulfilled by companies and regulated by the States. It acknowledges the scope of this obligation may vary by size and sector. It considers that states should establish “differentiated” obligations based on companies’ current and historic contribution to climate change, imposing stricter duties on companies that engage in higher-carbon sectors (in accordance with the “polluter pays” principle). 

See our blog post for further analysis.

Landmark ICJ Advisory opinion on the obligations of states regarding climate change

On 23 July 2025, the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") issued an advisory opinion, finding that States have binding legal obligations under international law to address climate change and protect the environment (the “Opinion”).  While the ICJ’s opinion is not legally binding, it does provide an authoritative interpretation of legally binding obligations and carries substantial legal and moral weight, so may well influence States’ policies (including in relation to certain sectors, such as fossil fuels).

Key takeaways:

• States have an obligation to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment from the harmful effect of greenhouse gas emissions, including by regulating the activities of private actors such as businesses.
• These duties arise not just from climate change treaties, but from a wide range of international law (including customary international law, human rights frameworks and other environmental treaties).
• The ICJ considered in detail States’ obligations under the Paris Agreement and how they are reflected in the obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – particularly notable given the expectation that States submit updated NDCs ahead of COP 30 in Brazil in November 2025.
• Breach of their obligations constitutes an internationally wrongful act for which States may be liable for full reparation to injured States, including through restitution, compensation, and satisfaction.
• The ICJ also established that the primary temperature goal under the Paris Agreement is to maintain global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, and that developed countries must take the lead in combating climate change and provide financial assistance to developing countries for both climate mitigation and adaptation activities.
• The ICJ opinion is the third of four advisory proceedings at international courts, clarifying state obligations in relation to climate change, including the opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (referred to above).

See our blog post for further analysis.

United Kingdom

English High Court rules on Nigerian laws on environmental harm in oil spill case

On 20 June 2025 the English High Court gave judgment on important preliminary issues of Nigerian law regarding claims for environmental harm, as part of the ongoing litigation against Shell in respect of oil spills in Nigeria: Alame v Shell plc [2025] EWHC 1539 (KB).

The defendants contend that many of the oil spills are the result of theft and other third party interference (“TPI”) or subsequent illegal refining. Their defences to the claims raised numerous novel issues of Nigerian private law and fundamental rights law.

On private law issues, the Court ruled on aspects of the claims in nuisance, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, trespass and negligence. Amongst other things, it held that a limitation period of 5 years applied and that a new cause of action would arise in trespass each day that oil remained on a claimant’s land. The Court held that negligence claims against the defendants for failing to prevent spills caused by TPI were available in principle (in addition to claims in nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher and trespass). However, it held that claims in nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher and trespass in respect of spills from illegal refining were not available (and that there were significant barriers to such claims in negligence).  On causation, the Court held that Nigerian law required assessment of the “most responsible cause” where there were multiple sources of pollution. If that could not be identified, then principles of causation from English authority would apply.

On fundamental rights issues, the Court found that the rights relied on by the claimants in the Nigerian Constitution were unlikely to have horizontal effect or unlikely to be engaged by oil pollution. It also found that claims under the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights cannot be enforced against private companies, and that neither the Nigerian Constitution nor the African Charter enable claims to be brought for damage in relation to an oil spill caused by TPI. The claims are expected to proceed to trial in early 2027.

See our blog post here for the earlier Court of Appeal decision relating to procedural aspects of this case.

Friends of the Earth challenges the UK’s climate adaptation plan before the European Court of Human Rights

On 14 July 2025, Friends of the Earth announced it had commenced a case in the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the UK government’s national climate adaptation plan.

Friends of the Earth unsuccessfully challenged the UK government’s third National Adaptation Programme in domestic courts, with their application for judicial review dismissed in October 2024 (see our February 2025 Bulletin). They now argue that the UK's climate adaptation plan breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. The claim includes allegations that the UK government: (i) set vague objectives with unclear and unmeasurable goals, (ii) provided ineffective protection for individuals and communities affected by climate change-related events, and (iii) consultation was inadequate.

Contempt of court application survives strike out in Mariana Dam case

On 26 June 2025, in the ongoing Mariana Dam proceedings, the English High Court handed down judgment dismissing an application to strike out the Municipality Claimants’ (“MCs”) application to commit BHP for criminal contempt: Município De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & BHP Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 1601 (TCC). The MCs allege that BHP procured and funded proceedings in Brazil (the “IBRAM Claim”) to block access to the English courts, interfering with the administration of justice.

The IBRAM Claim was brought by the Brazilian Mining Institute (“IBRAM”), of which a subsidiary of BHP is a member.  IBRAM sought a declaration from the Brazilian courts that Brazilian municipalities had no standing to bring actions in jurisdictions other than Brazil. The MCs considered that the IBRAM claim had been procured to block their participation in the English proceedings.

BHP sought to have the contempt application struck out, contending that the MCs had not outlined reasonable grounds for the contempt application, it was an abuse of process and it did not serve the public interest.

The Court held that even if foreign proceedings are lawful, they may still constitute contempt if intended to interfere with access to justice in England. The existence of the anti-suit injunction jurisdiction did not oust the criminal contempt jurisdiction.  The public interest in maintaining the administration of justice and the seriousness of the allegation supported allowing the application to proceed. The MCs’ application was not struck out, with the merits to be considered at a substantive hearing.

Brazil Iron entities to face pollution claim in English courts

 On 1 August 2025, the English Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal against the High Court’s decision that it had jurisdiction in the case of Da Silva v Brazil Iron Ltd [2025] EWHC 606 (KB).

The case concerns claims of environmental damage to land in Brazil said to be caused by the activities of the Brazil Iron, which was engaged in iron ore mining, and of harassment and intimidation. The claimants seek damages under Brazilian law for personal injury and financial loss and sought injunctive relief. Brazil Iron challenged the jurisdiction of the English court on the basis that Brazil was the appropriate forum.

The High Court concluded that despite Brazil being the forum with which the claims have the more real and substantial connection, there was “a real risk that substantial justice will not be obtained in the foreign jurisdiction”, such that that English courts had jurisdiction. The case is now expected to proceed to trial in England.

United Kingdom faces investment treaty claim regarding proposed coal mine

On 8 August 2025, the first ICSID investment arbitration claim was commenced against the United Kingdom. It concerns the revocation of planning permission for a proposed coal mine. The claim is brought by a Singaporean investor (Woodhouse Investment) and its UK subsidiary (West Cumbria Mining).

The dispute is being brought under the terms of the Singapore–UK bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) signed in 1975. West Cumbria Mining was the developer behind the proposed new underground coking coal mine near Whitehaven in Cumbria. The project obtained planning permission which was then challenged by two environmental organisations in judicial review proceedings in the High Court.

As reported in our February 2025 Bulletin, in September 2024 the UK government dropped its opposition to the challenges and the High Court found that the UK government had acted unlawfully in its approach to assessing greenhouse gas emissions and the project’s impact on climate change. The court quashed the project’s planning permission and the government then revoked the approval altogether. The investors claim this breached the UK’s obligations under the BIT.

Legal challenge puts hyperscale data centre planning under the ESG spotlight

NGOs have commenced what is understood to be the first UK judicial review targeting a “hyperscale data centre”, seeking greater scrutiny of environmental impacts of such projects.

The dispute centres on the West London Technology Park, a proposed 72,000 sq. m. data centre development on a 52-hectare site near the M25. Planning permission was granted in August 2025 without an environmental impact assessment (“EIA”), following assurances regarding air cooling and resource use. NGOs allege that the government’s decision to forgo an EIA failed to consider fully the scheme’s environmental footprint, particularly electricity and water consumption, and risks setting a precedent for future large-scale data centre projects.

ASA publishes rulings on green claims in cruise advertisements

On 3 September 2025, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) published four rulings upholding complaints on green claims in cruise advertising. In these cases, travel agencies presented claims suggesting significant reductions in emissions and environmental impact from cruises, with terms such as “sustainable travel” or “leading the way in green cruising.” The ASA identified various failures, including failure to hold robust evidence substantiating environmental and comparative claims, and misleading omission of material information about the environmental impact of cruises (including the full “life cycle” of cruises).

France

Duty of vigilance – first ruling on the merits upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal

 On 17 June 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal issued its first decision on the merits based on the French Duty of Vigilance Law. The Court upheld the Paris Judicial Court's judgment of 5 December 2023 requiring La Poste to revise its vigilance plan.

The proceedings were initiated by the SUD PTT trade union on 22 December 2021, challenging the adequacy of La Poste's vigilance plan published on 21 March 2022. For more information see our blog post on the Paris Judicial Court’s December 2023 decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Paris Judicial Court on the basis that:

• Risk mapping must be sufficiently detailed: the Court highlighted that the risk mapping in the company’s vigilance plan was too generic to identify, analyse and prioritise risks efficiently.
• Evaluation procedures must derive from a detailed risk mapping: the Court found that the company's existing procedures cannot efficiently remedy risks that have not been duly identified, analysed and prioritised through a detailed mapping exercise.
• Genuine consultation is required on alert mechanisms: the Court clarified that the Law of Vigilance requires effective consultation with trade unions. This consultation requires transmission of information, an exchange of views, and proposals on the drafting of the content and implementation of the alert mechanism. The Court found that La Poste failed to show that a dialogue with trade unions had taken place prior to the development of the alert mechanism.
• Monitoring system must reflect vigilance measures: the Court determined that the monitoring indicators developed by the Company lacked alignment with the objectives of preventing serious harm. The Court determined that the monitoring report essentially presents indicators chosen by La Poste but gives no explanation of the implementation and effects of the vigilance measures provided by the plan.

New Environmental Judicial Public Interest Agreements ("CJIP") demonstrate the growing success of this enforcement mechanism

Three recent cases illustrate the growing success of environmental enforcement through the Convention Judiciaire d'Intérêt Public (“CJIP”) mechanism, France's deferred prosecution agreement which allows certain criminal claims to be settled through the payment of financial penalties and compliance and remedial measures.

• ASA de Marsillargues case (July 2025): This CJIP validated by the Montpellier Judicial Court concerned dredging works destroying trees over 4,200 linear metres sheltering protected species. The defendant accepted a €3,000 fine and €28,603 payment to the Nature Conservancy for replanting.
• La Clusaz case (May 2025): This CJIP concerned irregular water extraction since 2014 from the Lachat spring for artificial snow production. The defendant (the municipality of La Clusaz) committed to cease extraction and conduct regulatory audits, accepting a €130,000 fine and €25,000 payment to environmental associations.
• SAS Salaisons Mak Yuen case (July 2025): This CJIP addressed non-compliance with water flow rates and concentration limits impacting wastewater treatment. The defendant (SAS Salaisons Mak Yuen) committed to a €52,000 fine and 3-year compliance programme with bi-monthly monitoring.

Court validates satellite images as evidence in marine pollution case

On 25 April 2025, the Rouen Court of Appeal handed down a criminal ruling on marine pollution in a case against a vessel owner and its captain, with the Surfrider Foundation Europe and France Nature Environment associations as civil parties.

On 13 January 2021, the vessel left the port of Le Havre loaded with 4,976 tons of rapeseed oil bound for Rotterdam. On the same day, the Regional Operational Centre for Surveillance and Rescue received a CleanSeaNet report following satellite detection of a pollution wake from a harmful liquid substance covering an area of 8.25 km² in French territorial waters.

The Court reversed the first instance acquittal and considered that the CleanSeaNet satellite images coupled with the Automatic Identification System tracking data were sufficient evidence to confirm that the vessel illegally discharged a polluting substance into territorial waters.

The Court imposed a criminal fine of €60,000 on the vessel owner and €20,000 on the captain, and awarded €10,000 in environmental damage compensation to each civil party association, plus legal costs.

Versailles Court of Appeal confirms post-acquisition environmental liability for historical contamination

On 18 June 2025, the Versailles Court of Appeal rendered a judgment on a dispute following the 2008 acquisition of an industrial plant by a chemical group from an oil company. The court sentenced the seller to pay over €16.9 million in damages as well as additional clean-up costs to be justified by the buyer, for inadequate management of waste and PFAS contamination.

This decision includes two notable legal developments: the classification of contaminated groundwater as waste subject to environmental code provisions, and a broad interpretation of an environmental liability guarantee covering all pre-acquisition contamination, regardless of subsequent migration.

The ruling confirms that former operators of classified installations may remain liable for historical pollution even after ceasing operations, thereby reinforcing the polluter-pays principle in French environmental law.

Germany

Greenwashing stays in the spotlight in Germany

Once again, developments in the area of greenwashing were particularly noteworthy over the past quarter: NGOs continue to focus on this issue. While some of the greenwashing actions they have initiated have been decided in the first instance in recent months (e.g., concerning flight search engines and nutritional supplements), others are still in the initial stages. Most notably, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, an environmental NGO, recently opened a whole series of new cases concerning a variety of sectors. In addition to six injunctions filed against companies from different industries in several regional courts, Deutsche Umwelthilfe very recently called on 28 companies to cease allegedly misleading environmental advertising.

In addition, the German legislator is paying close attention to greenwashing. Germany is obliged to transpose the EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive into national law by 27 September 2026 (read more in our client alert). The cabinet recently approved a draft law that provides for a one-to-one transposition. As required by EU law, the proposal seeks to counter greenwashing and to introduce strict rules for sustainability labels (read more in our blog post). The bill will now proceed through ordinary legislative procedure.

Italy

Italian Supreme Court confirms jurisdiction in a landmark climate lawsuit against a global energy company

On 22 July 2025, the United Section of the Supreme Court of Italy issued a landmark order affirming that the Court of Rome has jurisdiction over the climate-related claims filed by two non-governmental organizations and a group of citizens.

As noted in previous Bulletins in July 2023 and February 2025 the claim was filed in 2023 before the Court of Rome against an energy company, the Ministry of Economy and Finance (“MEF”), and the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti, SpA (“CDP”) – the Italian promotional bank, which were named in their capacity as the energy company’s main shareholders.

The case seeks to hold the energy company liable for losses linked to its alleged failure to implement adequate measures to cut carbon emissions in line with global climate targets. Specifically, the claimants ask the Court of Rome to compel the energy company to reduce its CO₂ emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, compared to 2020 levels, and to impose a financial penalty for any breach.

The claimants also allege that MEF and CDP hold joint and several liability, based on their roles as shareholders with significant decision-making power and dominant influence over the energy company's corporate strategy. Consequently, the plaintiffs are asking the Court of Rome to order MEF and CDP to adopt an internal policy which establishes binding climate targets for the energy company and to ensure they are effectively monitored, and to impose a financial penalty for any breach.

The case will now proceed to be determined on the merits before the Court of Rome and is regarded as a pivotal moment for corporate climate accountability in Italy. See our blog post for further analysis.

Further, in response to these proceedings, the energy company filed defamation proceedings against the NGOs. The NGOs have classified the defamation proceedings as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), which is denied by the energy company. The hearing for this case was held on 23 September 2025.

Conviction of a chemical company’s executives by the Court of Vicenza in a PFAS case

On 26 June 2025, following a four-year trial, the Criminal Court of Vicenza (Corte di Assise di Vicenza) handed down sentences against eleven former executives of a chemical company that operated a plant in Trissino (Vicenza). The defendants received a combined total of 141 years in prison for water poisoning, environmental disaster, and fraudulent bankruptcy linked to PFAS contamination in the provinces of Vicenza, Padua, and Verona.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), used since the 1940s for their water and oil repellent properties, have been classified since the 2000s as potentially carcinogenic and toxic depending on the level of exposure.

The sentences range from two years and eight months to seventeen years in prison and are accompanied by damages awarded to over 300 civil claimants, amounting to several tens of millions of euros. The Ministry of the Environment was awarded EUR 58 million.

This is a landmark judgment, setting a decisive legal precedent for future cases concerning large-scale industrial contamination. The reasons for the judgment are expected to be published in the coming months.

The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) investigates two fashion companies and a European E-commerce operator for a fast-fashion brand

The AGCM has been investigating two luxury fashion companies and a European e-commerce operator of a fast fashion brand, having launched three separate inquiries into alleged greenwashing practices.

• On 4 August 2025, the AGCM fined a company that manages a European e-commerce sites for a fast-fashion brand EUR 1 million for misleading environmental communication practices. According to the AGCM, the company employed vague and incomplete messaging to portray its brand as more sustainable than it actually is. The Authority concluded that companies operating in highly polluting industries such as fast fashion are subject to a heightened duty of care and transparency when communicating environmental credentials.
• On 1 August 2025, the AGCM fined a fashion house EUR 3.5 million for engaging in misleading commercial practices between 2022 and 2025. The Authority found a gap between the group’s public ethical and corporate social responsibility claims and the actual practices within its supply chain. While sustainability was promoted as a marketing tool, investigations revealed that the production of bags and accessories were subcontracted to workshops where severe labour violations occurred. Evidence showed that the brand was aware of these violations.
• On 21 May 2025, the AGCM concluded its investigation, launched in July 2024, into another fashion house. While no infringement was found, the Authority accepted a set of binding commitments put forward by the company to address concerns over its supply chain practices in Italy’s leather goods sector. Under the agreement, the brand will allocate EUR 2 million over five years to initiatives aimed at identifying and assisting victims of labour exploitation. The fashion house has also pledged to enhance governance and transparency within its supply chain and to launch targeted training programmes internally and for its suppliers and subcontractors.

Netherlands

Shell responds to Milieudefensie’s letter before action

The Dutch Friends of the Earth (Milieudefensie) issued a letter to Shell on 13 May 2025 threatening a new climate case against Shell and making allegations regarding Shell’s climate strategy and compliance with statutory obligations. Shell responded on 13 June 2025 rejecting the allegations. On 17 June 2025, Milieudefensie confirmed that it would continue its preparations for a writ of summons. According to Milieudefensie, it will ask the Dutch court to impose specific targets on Shell to reduce its emissions between 2030 and 2050 and to put an immediate stop to new oil and gas expansion.

Milieudefensie sends letter to 28 companies seeking to review climate plans

On 19 August 2025, Milieudefensie issued a letter to 28 companies that, according to Milieudefensie can make a significant contribution to achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement, asking them to submit their climate plans for review. Milieudefensie explains that it has commissioned New Climate Institute to determine whether the climate plans of 28 companies are aligned with the Paris Agreement. The results of the assessments will be set out in a report expected to be published in early 2026. The letter does not directly threaten legal action, but it does state that Milieudefensie will continue to hold slow responders to account.

Portugal

Portuguese court halts waste discharges and orders clean-up of contaminated ponds

On 25 July 2025, a Portuguese court in Setúbal ordered two companies, Coposet-Compostagem e Gestão de Resíduos and Mipeoils – Oils 4 The Future, to immediately cease discharging polluting waste and to prepare a clean-up plan for contaminated ponds. The decision follows an injunction filed by the Setúbal Public Prosecutor’s Office after a joint complaint by the Portuguese Environment Agency and the Lisbon and Tagus Valley Regional Coordination and Development Commission. The complaint alleged that the disposal of highly toxic waste was severely harming local biodiversity, degrading water quality, and endangering community health.

Environmentalists challenge construction of high-voltage power line

The environmental association ProtegeAlentejo applied for a preliminary injunction to suspend the planned construction of a 400-kilovolt transmission line to distribute electricity from Portugal’s largest solar facility between Ferreira do Alentejo and Sines. The association argues that the project threatens biodiversity, alters natural landscapes, and negatively affects rural communities. The injunction seeks to suspend construction until a comprehensive review of environmental impacts and potential alternative routes is completed. This is not the first judicial claim brought by ProtegeAlentejo; the association has previously initiated litigation in the region, including efforts to halt the development of one of the largest photovoltaic plants in Europe.

Asia

First climate litigation in Taiwan suffers setback on lack of standing

The first climate lawsuit in Taiwan, filed in 2021 by Greenpeace East Asia, the Environmental Jurists Association, and four individual plaintiffs against the Ministry of Economic Affairs, was dismissed by the Taipei High Administrative Court on 8 May 2025.

The plaintiffs challenged the Ministry's Regulation for Large Power Consumers, arguing the regulations were insufficiently ambitious to meet Taiwan's climate targets. The Taipei High Administrative Court ruled that citizens and civic groups have the right to propose regulatory amendments but lack standing to compel administrative agencies to modify laws or regulations. The Court further held that Taiwan's Climate Change Response Act and Renewable Energy Development Act serve general public interests, not specific groups or individuals, rejecting arguments that residents of flood-prone areas constitute a protected group under climate legislation.

The Court acknowledged the global rise of climate litigation, observed the diverse approaches across different legal systems, and suggested that if society favours greater judicial intervention in climate regulation, legislators should set out clearer statutory provisions to authorize such intervention. Greenpeace has filed an appeal to challenge the ruling.

Sri Lanka Supreme Court issues USD 1 billion environmental damages order in marine plastic pollution case

In July 2025, Sri Lanka's Supreme Court delivered a judgment ordering, among others, the Singapore shipping company X-Press Feeders and local agent Sea Consortium Lanka Pvt. Ltd. to pay an initial USD 1 billion in compensation for the 2021 MV X-Press Pearl disaster, which caused what the court described as the worst marine plastic spill in history.

The five-judge bench held the Master, Owner, Operators and local Agent jointly and severally responsible for concealing critical information about hazardous cargo, including a nitric acid leak, from Sri Lankan authorities, determining this violated international maritime laws and deprived the country of critical response time. The Court applied the "Polluter Pays Principle" and established absolute liability for hazardous maritime activities, ordering the first instalment of USD 250 million to be paid by 23 September 2025. The judgment also declared that multiple Sri Lankan state officials had infringed citizens' fundamental constitutional rights through various failures in their statutory duties. X-Press Feeders has indicated that the company would not comply with the court-ordered damages, arguing payment would "set a dangerous precedent" for global shipping.

Parallel proceedings continue across multiple jurisdictions: the English Admiralty Court granted X-Press Feeders and slot charterers a £19 million liability limitation under the 1976 Convention (challenged by Sri Lanka), whilst the proceedings commenced by the Sri Lankan government against the ship's owners in the Singapore International Commercial Court remain stayed pending the London case outcome.

United States of America

Challenges to U.S. Executive and Federal Agency Actions

On 17 September 2025, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s Climate Working Group is not exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act’s transparency requirements, rejecting arguments that the group formed to advise on climate policy could avoid oversight. While environmental groups failed to secure a preliminary injunction requiring disclosure of the group’s records, the judge found that the report produced by this group amounted to advice and recommendations, not mere information gathering. The decision allows the groups to challenge future regulatory actions based on the report, though they must await further litigation for record access.

On 18 August 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska denied environmental groups’ attempt to revive a lawsuit in which it had ruled in 2019 that President Trump could not undo President Obama’s restrictions on oil and gas leasing in certain outer continental shelf areas. A previous Ninth Circuit decision declared the case moot after President Biden reversed Trump’s policy in 2021, but the court refused to reinstate its judgment after President Trump’s recent Executive Order 14148, which rescinded all of President Biden’s previous executive orders. The court advised the organizations they could seek relief through a new lawsuit or by raising the executive order’s impact in related ongoing litigation.

Between June and September 2025, several major court decisions addressed federal agency termination of climate and environmental grants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated an injunction requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants, holding that nonprofit organizations’ claims were essentially contractual and belonged in the Court of Federal Claims, not federal district court—a finding challenged by the organizations in a pending rehearing petition. Meanwhile, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia partly blocked the Department of Agriculture from terminating six grants, including a $28 million urban forestry grant, citing arbitrary agency action but rejecting constitutional and procedural challenges. In California, the High-Speed Rail Authority sued the Trump Administration after $4 billion in grants were revoked, arguing the termination relied on insufficient risk analysis; the government subsequently moved to dismiss, arguing lack of jurisdiction and broad agency discretion. Separately, in Maryland, a court ruled the EPA unlawfully cancelled grants without a reasoned explanation, deeming the decision arbitrary and beyond statutory authority; that case is on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Offshore Wind Project Litigation

Litigation over offshore wind projects continues in light of President Trump’s executive memorandum issued on 20 January 2025 titled “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects,” which halted new or renewed wind leases.

On 22 September 2025, a D.C. federal judge allowed an offshore wind project to restart construction on its billion-dollar offshore wind farm near Rhode Island, overturning a stop work order issued by the Trump administration in August. The court granted a preliminary injunction to a Danish energy company, holding that the government’s sudden decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and finding no justified factual basis for halting progress, which was nearly 80 per cent complete. The judge highlighted that previous federal reviews had determined the project was compliant with federal law, and cited potential irreparable harm, as the energy company faced daily losses of $2.3 million and risked losing access to essential vessels if delays persisted. States purchasing power from the project had also launched lawsuits to overturn the halt.

Throughout August, a coalition of seventeen states and Washington, D.C. and the federal government exchanged dueling briefs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on a summary judgement motion related to President Trump’s memorandum halting federal approval of wind energy projects. Plaintiffs argued that the federal agencies’ indefinite suspension is arbitrary and capricious and exceeds statutory authority. Defendants argued that President Trump’s directive requires agencies to act within the scope of existing law, and only for the duration of a comprehensive assessment and review of federal leasing and permitting practices. The Court also received a summary judgment motion from intervening plaintiffs, the Alliance for Clean Energy, who claimed that the predicate comprehensive assessment and review is “likely illusory, pretextual, predetermined, and at minimum is interminable and redundant.” We covered Plaintiff’s claims in our July newsletter.

On 19 May 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) lifted its stop-work order on the Empire Wind 1 offshore wind energy project, located south of Long Island, New York, allowing construction to resume after a month-long freeze initiated by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum on 16 April 2025 for further review of project approvals. The freeze was prompted by concerns over whether the Biden administration conducted sufficient analysis or consultation with relevant federal agencies before issuing the project’s approvals. In light of the stop-work order being lifted, on 2 June 2025, several fishing companies and offshore wind opponents filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's decision to reverse course and allow construction on the project to resume.

State ESG Litigation and State Law Challenges

On 29 August 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted preliminary relief to proxy advisors Glass Lewis and ISS by blocking the Texas Attorney General from enforcing S.B. 2337, a state law requiring proxy advisors to disclose if their advice is based on nonfinancial factors such as environmental, social, or governance (ESG) criteria. The court found that the plaintiff firms had standing and met the requirements for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the law, which was set to take effect on 1 September 2025.

On 27 August 2025, a cruise industry association, a supplier to cruise ships, and two tourist businesses filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai‘i challenging Act 96, a state law that imposes a “Green Fee” or climate impact fee on cruise ships visiting Hawai‘i ports. The law introduces surcharges on cruise ship fares and registration fees, and mandates specific disclosures onboard and in advertisements, with collected funds intended for environmental stewardship, climate resilience, and sustainable tourism projects. Plaintiffs argue that these charges amount to unconstitutional “duties of tonnage” under the Tonnage Clause, conflict with the Rivers and Harbors Act, and that the disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment by compelling speech.  The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

In June 2025, President Trump signed three congressional resolutions barring California’s electric vehicle sales mandates and diesel engine rules, including its landmark plan to end the sale of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035, leading to litigation by states, companies, and the federal government. The congressional resolutions were intended to reverse Clean Air Act waivers issued during the Biden administration which had allowed California to set its own vehicle emissions standards. On 12 June 2025, California and 10 other states filed a complaint in California federal court, asking the court to declare that the resolutions “have no effect on the status or enforceability of state emissions control programs.” On 15 August 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had filed two lawsuits against the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regarding California’s enforcement of emissions standards through its “Clean Truck Partnership” with heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers, pursuant to which the companies had agreed to move away from traditional trucks and toward zero-emission vehicles. The DOJ’s filings follow a similar lawsuit filed by the manufacturers against CARB and other California officials on 11 August 2025, in which the companies claim they are “caught in the crossfire” between California and the federal government, and are being harmed by regulatory uncertainty.

In parallel, on 20 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision allowing a case filed by fuel producers to proceed.  The plaintiffs are challenging a separate California Clean Air Act waiver issued by EPA in 2022, which had allowed California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as part of its Advanced Clean Cars program. The Supreme Court’s decision, which did not reach the merits, held that the fuel producers have standing to sue the EPA based on market effects (rather than direct government regulation).

On 15 August 2025, a New York state court dismissed a lawsuit from the Town of Palm Tree, the Village of Kiryas Joel, and local officials contesting the Climate Justice Working Group’s criteria for designating “disadvantaged communities” under New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The court held that the Working Group’s actions did not constitute “rules” under the State Administrative Procedure Act or “actions” under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Even if SEQRA applied, the court found that the Working Group sufficiently evaluated environmental impacts. The court further ruled that the criteria were lawful, not arbitrary or discriminatory, and that using a weighted race and ethnicity score was rational and did not violate equal protection rights.

Litigation Related to Climate Disclosure Laws and Regulations

On 12 September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered that legal challenges to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) climate disclosure rules would “be held in abeyance to promote judicial economy” until the SEC determines whether “the Final Rules will be rescinded, repealed, modified or defended in litigation.”  The order comes after the SEC had asked the court on 23 July 2025 to continue its consideration of whether the SEC has authority to issue the rules, even though the SEC voted to stop defending them in March 2025. You can read more about the SEC rules and developments in the legal challenges in our client alert, blog post and April 2025, April 2024, May 2024, and June 2024 newsletters.

On 13 August 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California again denied a request by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to enjoin enforcement of California’s climate disclosure laws, SB 253 and SB 261, which were approved by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2023 and signed into law with amendments in October 2024.  In January 2025, the court denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, which argued that California’s climate disclosure laws violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by compelling speech. The case is now set for trial in October 2026.  Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision on the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and requested that the district court pause implementation of the laws while their appeal is pending.  The district court denied this request on 11 September 2025. For more information on these laws, see our client bulletin and quick guide.

Climate Change Litigation

On 6 August 2025, a South Carolina state court dismissed litigation brought by the City of Charleston against several fossil fuel companies, seeking to hold the defendants liable for climate change harms under theories of public and private nuisance, strict liability and negligent failure to warn, trespass, and violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA). Citing other recent dismissals of climate change litigation by state and federal courts, the court determined that the plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by federal law because they undermine the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate interstate emissions.

During May and August 2025, youth plaintiffs initiated several climate-related lawsuits challenging government actions and policies. In Wisconsin, fifteen youths filed suit against the Wisconsin Public Service Commission and Legislature, arguing that laws supporting a fossil fuel-based electricity system infringe their constitutional rights by worsening air pollution and limiting the growth of renewable energy, particularly by preventing the Commission from properly considering environmental impacts. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming violations of their rights to liberty, life, a stable climate, and access to navigable waters. Separately, youth plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit to revive their case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), basing their argument on recent Supreme Court decisions that support legal challenges to discriminatory policies even when it is uncertain that changing those policies will lessen plaintiffs’ injuries. Additionally, in Montana, 22 youths sued in federal court to contest executive orders from President Trump promoting increased fossil fuel and coal use, as discussed further in our July 2025 monthly newsletter.

Greenwashing Litigation and Enforcement

On 17 June 2025, customers of a waterproof fabric maker filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that the material uses toxic chemicals in its fabric manufacturing process. The suit further claims that instead of being transparent about the toxicity of their fabrics, the company “deceive[d] customers by downplaying its environmental impact.”  This litigation follows a largely identical suit filed in February 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, which was voluntarily dismissed on 17 June 2025.

On 28 May 2025, a group of consumers filed putative class actions across five states against an international consumer products corporation, asserting that the company misrepresented its commitment to environmental sustainability. We previously covered these cases in our July 2025 monthly ESG newsletter.

PFAS Litigation

On 17 July 2025, members of a class action suit reached a settlement with the sole-remaining chemical manufacturing defendant in a decade-long dispute in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York over the presence PFAS in drinking water. The plaintiffs claimed that, from the late 1960s to 2003, a manufacturing facility in their town used a foam that contained PFAS and contaminated the aquifer by releasing toxins into the environment, and that the defendants knew about the health risks associated with the chemicals long before they told the public. The multi-million dollar settlement awaits court endorsement, as the parties have yet to file a motion for final approval.

On 25 June 2025, the Attorney General of Michigan announced that the State of Michigan reached a settlement agreement with a paper products manufacturer, who the State initially sued in December 2022. In its 2022 complaint, the State claimed that company’s manufacturing process released high levels of PFAS into the environment despite the defendant’s representations that it was not hazardous. As a result of the settlement, the company must now remove contaminants from the relevant area and pay for future cleanup activities at the site.

Pollution Litigation

On 8 July 2025, a group of environmental advocates sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, arguing that the Agency’s use of hydrogen fluoride in domestic oil manufacturing refineries endangers the public and violates federal law.  Plaintiffs claim that hydrogen fluoride is a corrosive chemical used in over 40 oil refineries across the U.S., and that it can travel for miles in the form of toxic acid clouds, causing serious injury or death.  The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an order from the district court directing that the EPA “promptly commence a Section 6(a) risk-management rulemaking to eliminate those unreasonable risks; to publish a proposed rule within 1 year of the court’s ruling; and to publish a final rule within 2 years of the court’s ruling.”

Australia

Federal Court hands down decision in novel climate change duty of care case

On 15 July 2025, the Federal Court handed down its judgment in Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796, finding that the Commonwealth does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from the impacts of climate change. The applicants, Pabai Pabai and Guy Kabai, claimed that the Commonwealth breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to protect Torres Strait Islanders, their traditional way of life, and the surrounding marine environment from the adverse effects of climate change. Justice Wigney held that the Commonwealth did not owe the specific duty of care alleged. Consistent with the reasoning of the Full Court of the Federal Court in an earlier novel duty of care case, Minister for the Environment v Sharma (No 2) [2022] FCAFC 65, his Honour held that that the Commonwealth's decisions in setting emissions targets and implementing climate adaptation measures fell outside the scope of judicial determination under the current common law of negligence in Australia.

Uptick in ACCC greenwashing enforcement activity

In our September 2024 and May 2025 ESG Disputes Bulletins, we provided an update on the proceedings commenced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (“ACCC”) against Clorox Australia Pty Limited. The past quarter has seen a further uptick in enforcement activity, with the ACCC commencing two further greenwashing proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia:

• On 26 June 2025, the ACCC commenced proceedings against gas distributor Australian Gas Networks Limited (“AGN”) in relation to its 'Love Gas' advertising campaign. The ACCC alleges that AGN misled customers by suggesting that the gas it distributes to households will be renewable within a generation. The ACCC are claiming that AGN did not have reasonable grounds to make this representation, and overstated the likelihood of AGN being able to distribute renewable gas within a generation. The matter is listed for a case management and interlocutory hearing on 10 October 2025.
• On 30 June 2025, the ACCC also commenced penalty proceedings against Edgewell Personal Care Australia Pty Ltd (“Edgewell”), the owner of Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic branded sunscreen products. The proceedings concern over 90 products marketed between 2020 and 2024. The ACCC alleges that the company engaged in greenwashing by falsely marketing its sunscreens as 'reef friendly' despite allegedly containing four ingredients known to harm coral reefs. The matter is listed for its first case management hearing on 28 October 2025. For more information, see the Insight post from Allens.

Water rights emerge as key themes in ESG disputes

Two cases demonstrate how water rights are emerging as a key theme in ESG disputes, reflecting the interplay between environmental stewardship and human rights, particularly the rights of First Nations communities:

• On 11 August 2025, the hearing of a long-running class action against the Murray Darling Basin Authority (“MDBA”) and the Commonwealth of Australia commenced before the NSW Supreme Court. First commenced in May 2019 by Doyle's Farm Produce Pty Ltd, Coobool Downs Pastoral Co. Pty. Ltd. and their respective directors, the case alleges negligence by the MDBA in water management through the Murray Darling system, particularly in the Barmah-Millewa Forest during two periods between 2017 and 2019. The plaintiffs are seeking $750 million in damages. 
• On 29 August 2025, the Federal Court ruled that the former Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water breached her statutory obligations under section 63(3) of the Water Act 2007 (Cth) by approving the New South Wales Fractured Rock Water Resource Plan (“FRWRP”) without having reviewed its contents. The plan governs water found in geological fractures across the Murray-Darling Basin. The case was brought by a confederation of 20 First Nations groups, who argued that the federal government failed to adequately consult with traditional owners on cultural, social, and spiritual matters linked to water resources prior to the plan’s approval. The Court found that the Minister had not engaged with the affected First Nations groups and ordered the accreditation of the FRWRP be quashed and reconsidered by the current Minister.

Australian modern slavery regulation and litigation continues to develop

Modern slavery continues to be a key subject of ESG regulation in Australia. In our February 2025 ESG Disputes Bulletin, we discussed the Federal Government's response to the recommendations made in the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). On 21 July 2025, the Attorney-General's Department released a Consultation Paper on a selection of those recommendations, including the potential introduction of penalties for non-compliance.

In parallel, Australia's Anti-Slavery Commissioner has also been active. In July 2025, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner published a letter to law firms, industry associations and professional services regarding reporting entities' compliance with the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). The letter indicates that the Attorney-General's Department (which administers the Act) may focus its enforcement action on identifying reporting entities that fail to submit a modern slavery statement.

Modern slavery related litigation has also been commenced in the Australian courts. In August 2025, the Australian Uyghur Tangritagh Women's Association (AUTWA), represented by the Human Rights Law Centre and Maurice Blackburn, commenced an action in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking to compel a company to provide documents relating to certain of its suppliers alleged to be connected to forced labour in Xinjiang, China.

Bluewashing enforcement action continues

In our November 2023 and January 2024 ESG Disputes Bulletins, we reported on enforcement action taken by ASIC against ACBF Funeral Plan Pty Ltd (in liquidation) in relation to bluewashing and impacts to First Nations persons' rights. The company falsely claimed to be Aboriginal-owned or managed, misleading First Nations consumers when selling and promoting funeral expense insurance.

In a recent development, on 10 July 2025, the Federal Court imposed a $3.5 million penalty on ACBF Funeral Plans Pty Ltd. This penalty adds to a previous $1.2 million fine from 2023, bringing the total to $4.7 million. Although the penalties will not be enforced without court approval as ACBF is in liquidation, Justice Goodman described ACBF’s conduct as deliberate and egregious and ASIC's chair emphasised the ruling as a strong deterrent against deceptive practices targeting Aboriginal communities. This development is another example of ASIC's continuing focus on bluewashing and greenwashing in Australia. See this Insight post by Allens.

South Africa

Successful challenge to offshore oil and gas exploration authorisation

Two environmental NGOs (“Applicants”) instituted an application in the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the decision to grant an environmental authorisation to Total Energies EP South Africa Block 567 Proprietary Limited ("Total"). The authorisation allows Total to conduct offshore exploration drilling for oil or gas.

On 13 August 2025, the Western Cape High Court handed down judgment in favour of the Applicants, finding that the decision to grant environmental authorisation to Total to conduct offshore exploration drilling was unlawful. Notably, Judge Mangcu-Lockwood ruled that Total's final environmental impact report failed to substantiate its "need and desirability" given the climate change impacts of burning any gas discovered by the project, and, further, to adequately assess the socio-economic impacts of a potential oil spill on commercial and small-scale fishers and local communities. It was also found that the award of the environmental authorisation did not properly consider the factors prescribed by the National Environmental Management Act.  Total was also found to have failed to adequately assess the transboundary impacts of the project on neighbouring countries like Namibia and on international waters, as required by customary international law.

The decision to grant the authorisation was remitted to the Director General of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy for reconsideration. Total was ordered to conduct further public participation.

Successful challenge to gas power plant authorisation

On 17 September 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") set aside an environmental authorisation granted to Eskom SOC Limited ("Eskom") to build a combined cycle gas power plant in Richards Bay, on grounds which included the failure to conduct an adequate climate change impact assessment.

The decision was set aside on two grounds. First, on the basis of procedural unfairness, for failure to deliver adequate notice to the local community.  Second, Eskom had failed to consider renewable energy alternatives for its proposed project, citing that South Africa's policy commitments to supporting gas projects as a transitional measure were sufficient for it to not need to consider renewable energy options as alternatives.  The Court confirmed that the climate change impacts of a listed activity in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 must be assessed in applications for environmental authorisation and that an assessment of reasonable and feasible alternatives to a proposed project is required, in line with, amongst other factors, sustainable development.

The SCA found that despite South Africa's policy commitments, the legal framework obliges an applicant for an environmental authorisation to properly consider alternative options with lesser environmental impacts.

Supreme Court appeal over a water use licence for the Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine in Mpumalanga dismissed

On 29 May, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) dismissed a statutory appeal under the s 149(1) of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 ("NWA") against the decision of the Water Tribunal to uphold a water use licence granted by the Department of Water and Sanitation (the “Department”) to Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd for the Yzermyn Underground Coal Mine in Mpumalanga.

The appellants challenged the licence on environmental, socio-economic and procedural grounds, contending that: (i) the Tribunal failed to consider the strategic importance of the area for water security and biodiversity, (ii) the licence was unlawfully issued without the landowner’s consent as required by s 24 of the NWA, (iii) insufficient provision was made for post-closure water treatment, and (iv) the precautionary principle under the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) had been misapplied.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in 2019 and the High Court in 2023 upheld this decision. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal reiterated that appeals under s 149(1) are confined to questions of law, whereas most of the appellants’ grounds were factual disputes in disguise. The Court clarified that “good reason” in s 24 does not require a “public reason” but a sound basis consistent with the NWA’s objectives, and the Department had good reason to issue the licence notwithstanding the absence of the landowner’s written consent. It further held that closure planning is an iterative process, reasonably to be finalised closer to mine closure, with licence conditions subject to amendment, and that the precautionary principle does not demand absolute scientific certainty before authorisation.

Finding that the Tribunal and High Court had adequately weighed the environmental concerns against the socio-economic benefits, the SCA dismissed the appeal and criticised the litigation as vexatious and an abuse of process.

Supreme Court of Appeal overturns High Court decision setting aside environmental licenses granted to Highlands wind energy companies

The Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) overturned an order of the High Court which had set aside environmental authorisations ("EAs") granted to three Highlands wind energy companies for the construction of wind energy facilities in the Cookhouse Renewable Energy Development Zone.
The respondents in the High Court argued that the EAs were unlawfully granted in the absence of: (i) final locality maps as required by regulation 26(c)(iv) of the 2014 EIA Regulations, (ii) approved Environmental Management Programmes (EMPrs), and (iii) consideration of the cumulative impact of the grid connections. The High Court accepted these grounds and remitted the applications.

On appeal, the SCA held that regulation 26 is not an empowering provision but a content requirement; that the North EA did contain sufficient coordinates to identify the corridor of activities; and that there is no requirement in either NEMA or the EIA Regulations that an EMPr must be approved prior to or simultaneously with the grant of an EA. The Court further applied s 47A(1)(a) of NEMA, which provides that procedural defects do not invalidate an authorisation unless material and prejudicial, and noted that the conditional nature of the EAs ensured ongoing compliance.
Finding no material prejudice to the respondents and confirming that the statutory purpose of environmental protection was not undermined, the SCA upheld the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order.