Blog

By Mark Hinnells, director of Susenco Consulting Ltd

Litigation on climate change is, quite literally, heating up! In the past few months there have been two reviews of climate change and litigation: the UNEP Global Climate Litigation Report: 2025 Status Review was published in October, and the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics published a review in June. Both reviews rely on data from the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, which maintains a database of US and global litigation.

By Dr Mark Hinnells, director of Susenco Consulting Ltd, London and Hong Kong

Fiduciary duty is the obligation of a decision-maker to act in the best interests of their client. Trustees, fund managers, directors – even cabinet ministers – have a fiduciary duty. The whole financial system rests on discharging it appropriately. Should the discharge of fiduciary duty have regard to environment, social and governance (ESG) issues and climate change? And if so, how? 

Mark Hinnells, director of Susenco Consulting Ltd, ponders the implications of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change 

On 23rd July the International Court of Justice CJ passed an Advisory Opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. 

The opinion has clearly not been issued in isolation. It sits alongside a history of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports published since 1990, with increasingly urgent scientific evidence. It supports the Paris Agreement 2015 targets to limit warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, implying a halving of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and net zero emissions by mid-century. Governments are currently in their third round of making Nationally Declared Contributions (NDCs) towards the Paris Agreement. 

By Chris Makin chartered accountant, accredited civil mediator and accredited expert determiner 

You may have seen my article last December, and many similar from other mediators, with the title Have the Floodgates Finally Opened? We rejoiced at the case of Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416 when, at long last, the Court of Appeal overturned Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 576 where Dyson LJ had said: “…to oblige truly unwilling parties to refer their disputes to mediation would be to impose an unacceptable obstruction to their right of access to the court.” He said that this would offend Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which establishes the right to a fair trial. 

Well, now there isn’t an obstruction. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, decided that a judge can now insist that the parties go to mediation before being allowed a hearing. So all those years where judges imposed costs orders, made pointed remarks from the bench and kept parties waiting for many months, are over. Yippee! Parties can be helped by a friendly mediator, promptly and at modest cost, and have their own solution to their dispute. Wonderful!