International
Page 54
well as moves to set concrete objectives to achieve net-zero carbon emissions. What can be inferred from McVeigh v REST is that investment funds must be aware of these changes and have protocols in place to mitigate any losses incurred, particularly in Australia where it is mandatory for financial contributions to be made and losses have the potential to significantly and adversely impact retirement funds. The fact that REST committed to these substantial goals in the absence of a court order also indicates that disclosure law is a particularly compelling avenue when it comes to climate change litigation. Although the “misleading and deceptive” cause of action in McVeigh is similar to “duties of reasonable care” rooted in tort law, it seems that the public disclosure route is far more convenient and prone to success. Since the success of Urgenda in 2015, there have been recurring debates about the potential for, and problems involved in, allowing similar litigation based on tort law in Australia. Claims rooted in negligence or nuisance demand at a minimum a demonstration of actual harm and commonly a more extensive demonstration of causality. The most well-known environmental law cases such as AEP v Connecticut and Comer v Murphy Oil have failed on these particular elements in the past. The public disclosure avenue seems like a convenient method to circumvent these legal requirements and achieve the same or similar outcomes in cases that might have failed if they were rooted in tort law. McVeigh is by no means the first litigant to rely on this avenue, with attempts being made in various other cases of this nature However, no case had been successful up to this point. The first case about climate-related financial risk was filed in the US, for alleged misrepresentations to the public and investors about how Exxon accounted for the costs of climate change regulation but failed. Similarly, a shareholder claim brought in 2017 against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), argued that climate-related risks were material financial risks to the bank and that the bank had breached the Corporations Act 2001 because of inadequate disclosure of this risk. The case was withdrawn after the CBA included references to climate risk in its next annual report. In September 2018, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission issued a set of recommendations in its report, highlighting that managing climate risk is an important governance and disclosure issue. Although it would have been more interesting and meaningful from a legal perspective if the Australian Federal Court had adjudicated on the matter in McVeigh, the case and the overall developments in the Australian jurisdiction suggest that the consideration of climate change-related risk is finally evolving as industry best practice, and that statutory disclosure regimes could be an emerging frontier for climate litigation in Australia.
ECtHR Climate Litigation: Youth Taking the Lead Once Again By Jacob Hudson, JF Law and Political Science One of the most powerful characteristics of the fight for climate action has undoubtedly been its age profile. From Greta Thunberg, the teenage stalwart of the modern environmentalist movement, to the millions of students around the world who took to the streets over climate change inaction. It is apparent just how passionate and engaged the global youth are in protecting their own futures. Now they have taken yet another important step in the field of climate litigation on the floor of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with the crowd-funded support of the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), a not-for-profit human rights law firm located in both London and at the Irish Centre for Human Rights in NUI Galway. On November 30th 2020, the ECtHR allowed the hearing of a case brought by six Portuguese children and
