1. Causes of Action

AUSTRALIA

Federal court: Living Wonders Interventions 

Environmental Justice Australia submitted 19 requests to the Australian Federal Environment minister to reconsider first stage of the assessment of most pending coal and gas proposals and expansions in Australia that were before her. Their client, ECoCeQ, provided the Minister with 3000 documents and spreadsheets listing the direct and indirect impacts of climate change as found by research scientists. They also provided the Minister with continent-wide mapping evidence showing the impact of climate-fuelled bushfires on all the species and places under Federal supervision.

On 4 November 2022, Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek announced that she would reassess 18 major coal and gas proposals, including Woodside's Northwest Shelf and Whitehaven's Narrabri mine. There was a short window, until 24 November 2022, for the public to provide submissions on the proposals.

On 8 February 2023, the Minister rejected a new Central Queensland Coal Project near Rockhampton. The Minister said she rejected the project due to the risks it posed to the Great Barrier Reef, freshwater creeks, and groundwater. The department received more than 9000 public comments about the mine, with 98% in favour of blocking the project. It was the first time a major new coal mine had been rejected under the Federal EPBC Act.

On 2 June 2023, ECoCeQ filed two cases in the Federal Court seeking judicial review of the Minister's decisions to extend the Mount Pleasant and Narrabri coal mines. The matters have been listed for hearing from 18-22 September in the Federal Court.

On 18 September 2023, Justice McElwaine issued a judgment about the admissibility of the evidence of two climate experts. On 11 October 2023, Justice McElwaine dismissed the Living Wonders climate cases.

In late October 2023, an appeal was lodged to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

CANADA

 Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) 

Supreme Court: 'It is suggested (...) that a third party's obligation to consult Aboriginal peoples may arise from the ability of the third party to rely on justification as a defense against infringement. However, the duty to consult and accommodate, as discussed above, flows from the Crown's assumption of sovereignty over lands and resources formerly held by the Aboriginal group. This theory provides no support for an obligation on third parties to consult or accommodate. The Crown alone remains legally responsible for the consequences of its actions and interactions with third parties, that affect Aboriginal interests. The Crown may delegate procedural aspects of consultation to industry proponents seeking a particular development; this is not infrequently done in environmental assessments. Similarly, the terms of T.F.L. 39 mandated Weyerhaeuser to specify measures that it would take to identify and consult with "aboriginal people claiming an aboriginal interest in or to the area" (...). However, the ultimate legal responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the Crown. The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated.'

 Tsleil-Waututh v Canada (Attorney General) 

Federal Court of Appeal: Consultation requires meaningful 'two-way dialogue' and involves 'testing and being prepared to amend policy proposals in the light of information received, and providing feedback'.

 The Clean Train Coalition Inc v Metrolinx 

- Superior Court of Justice: 'in exercising its leadership in the planning, development and implementation of the regional transportation network, Metrolinx is required to comply with provincial transportation plans and policies as they apply to the regional transportation area'.

INDIA

Debasish Banerjee v West Bengal Pollution Control Board & Ors 

National Green Tribunal: 'In the present case, the Respondent No. 4 has failed to discharge the burden of proof of its claim that its activities are environmentally benign. Except for a bald statement that it does not manufacture chemical substance and (...) mere denial that the allegations made by the Applicant are not correct, no evidence have been produced in support of such assertions. The Respondent No. 4 also has failed to even whisper a suggestion of there being some other possible source of the gaseous substance detected in the room, where the deceased had been living with her roommate. Also just because there was no public complaint about leakage of gas as asserted on behalf of the Respondent No. 4, it does not necessarily mean that there was no such leakage'.

ITALY

Legalità per il clima on behalf of 45 individuals and Italian CSOs v Cremonini S.p.A.

The claimants filed a specific instance regarding the company's activities related to intensive livestock farming in Italy. They allege that the livestock sector, given the production of large amounts of methane, contributes to the climate emergency and that this is not in compliance with the OECD Guidelines.

 Legalità per il clima on behalf of 38 others v Gruppo Veronesi 

The claimants filed a specific instance regarding the company's activities related to intensive livestock farming in Italy. They allege that the livestock sector, given the production of large amounts of methane, contributes to the climate emergency and that this is not in compliance with the OECD Guidelines.

Legalità per il clima on behalf of 10 CSOs v ENI S.p.A. 

Claimants filed a specific instance concerning the climatic impacts of the industrial plan of ENI, given its relation to the extraction and marketing of fossil fuels and an incorrect disclosure of information, both of which were not in compliance with the OECD Guidelines.

NORWAY

Greenpeace Nordic Ass'n v Ministry of Petroleum and Energy 

Supreme court: 'A coalition of environmental groups sought a declaratory judgment from the Oslo District Court that Norway's Ministry of Petroleum and Energy violated the Norwegian constitution by issuing a block of oil and gas licenses for deep-sea extraction from sites in the Barents Sea. Their petition highlighted several key factual points: the licenses would allow access to as-yet undeveloped fossil fuel deposits, and such development is inconsistent with the climate change mitigation required to avert global warming of 1.5°C and possibly even 2°C in excess of pre-industrial levels; the area made accessible by the licenses would be the northernmost yet developed, and would abut the ice zone—thus rigs and tankers would be exposed to unprecedented risks of damage and spills, and their operation would deliver emissions of black carbon to the highly sensitive arctic; and the Norwegian government will incur costs to develop the sites, and will only recoup those costs if the oil and gas they produce commands and adequately high market price.'

KENYA

Ken Kasing'a v Daniel Kiplagat Kirui & 5 others 

Court of Appeal at Nakuru: 'It is apparent from the above that the State, through its relevant organs, has the duty to ensure that the persons most affected by the project are consulted and this inevitably includes neighbours.

The 6th respondent was aware of this important need and proceeded to interview some persons for their views. But to me, the persons interviewed were not the ones most affected by the project. It is admitted that they were caretakers of homes or guest houses. None was a property owner, or at least tenant, of the premises to be most affected. That cannot be defined as public participation. It is critical that the neighbours of any project be specifically sought for their views, in so far as an EIA project report, or an EIA study report, is concerned. Their input is significant. If none wants to participate, a diligent EIA expert will include that in her report, giving the manner in which the person was sought and how and when he declined to give comments. Although there is contention as to whether or not the petitioner was sought out, I will give him the benefit of doubt, for there is no mention in the EIA project report, that he was actively sought and he declined to comment or could not be reached for comment. The purported public participation was done casually and was probably deliberately evading the opinions of immediate neighbours.

Public participation for purposes of EIA ought to be real and actual. It has a critical role, for the persons to be most affected, may offer alternatives to the project or propose important mitigation measures. It is not a window dressing exercise, and neither should it be looked at as a mere formality, aimed only at ticking the boxes.'

PHILIPPINES

Global Legal Action on Climate Change v the Philippine Government (GLACC) 

Claimants filed a petition to order various government departments to act on the provisions of two statutes pertaining to flood control. When the defendant government departments submitted a work plan committing to carry out the required works and signed a Memorandum of Understanding, the case was settled.

UNITED STATES

 People v. Jofaz Transportation, Inc 

The New York State Office, claimants, filed an enforcement action against school bus contractors for violating state idling laws which protect the environment by hoping to minimise emissions from vehicles.

Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp 

Claimants, sixteen Puerto Rico municipalities, have filed a class action in the federal district court for the District of Puerto Rico, seeking to hold oil and coal companies for losses caused during the 2017 hurricane season and ongoing economic loss since that time. The municipalities contend that the defendants are responsible for climate change impacts which increased the intensity of the storms and other physical climate change impacts in Puerto Rico.