Case and date

Trail Smelter Case (United States v Canada), interim award 16 April 1938; final award 11 March 1941.

Court and location

International arbitral tribunal constituted under the 1935 Ottawa Convention; hearings and proceedings concerned the smelter at Trail, British Columbia, and damage in Washington State, United States.

Plaintiff / claimant

United States of America, presenting claims for transboundary injury in Washington State.

Defendant / respondent

Dominion of Canada, internationally responsible for the operation of the privately owned Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company’s Trail plant.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Arbitrators Charles Warren (United States), Robert A. E. Greenshields (Canada), and Jan Frans Hostie (Belgium, chair).

Summary and verdict

Sulphur-dioxide fumes from the Canadian smelter damaged crops, forests and land across the border. The tribunal ordered compensation, imposed a monitoring and control regime, and articulated the often-cited proposition that a state may not use its territory so as to cause serious injury in another state. This was a pollution dispute, not a modern greenhouse-gas case, but it became a doctrinal precursor for transboundary environmental responsibility.

Documentation

United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. III, pp. 1905–1982

Case and date

M. C. Mehta and Another v Union of India and Others, Supreme Court of India, judgment 20 December 1986.

Court and location

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, India.

Plaintiff / petitioner

Public-interest lawyer M. C. Mehta and another petitioner.

Defendant / respondent

Union of India and public authorities; Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries was the industrial enterprise at the centre of the oleum-gas leak.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Chief Justice P. N. Bhagwati delivered the principal judgment; the bench also included Ranganath Misra, G. L. Oza, M. M. Dutt and K. N. Singh JJ.

Summary and verdict

After oleum gas escaped from Shriram’s Delhi plant, the Court treated environmental safety as inseparable from the constitutional right to life. It formulated “absolute liability” for enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity: unlike common-law strict liability, the duty admitted no traditional exceptions. The case helped establish Indian public-interest environmental litigation and supplied a legal bridge from local industrial pollution to later climate-rights claims.

Documentation

Full judgment, Indian Kanoon

Case and date

Minors Oposa v Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993.

Court and location

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines.

Plaintiff / petitioner

A group of children, led by Juan Antonio Oposa and represented by their parents, together with the Philippine Ecological Network.

Defendant / respondent

DENR Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran Jr., later substituted by Secretary Angel C. Alcala; the trial judge was a nominal respondent in the certiorari petition.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Associate Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. wrote the decision for the Court sitting en banc; Justice Florentino P. Feliciano concurred separately.

Summary and verdict

The children challenged timber-licence policies that threatened the remaining Philippine rainforests. The Supreme Court reinstated the action and accepted that minors could sue for themselves and for generations yet unborn, grounding standing in intergenerational responsibility and the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. The judgment did not itself cancel every licence, but it became a foundational authority for future-generations litigation.

Documentation

Full judgment, Lawphil

Case and date

Massachusetts et al. v Environmental Protection Agency et al., 549 U.S. 497, decided 2 April 2007.

Court and location

Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C., United States.

Plaintiff / petitioner

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, joined by other states, cities and environmental organisations.

Defendant / respondent

United States Environmental Protection Agency and its administrator; industry and state intervenors supported the agency.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 5–4 majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia wrote dissents.

Summary and verdict

The petitioners challenged EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The Court held that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases fit the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant”, that Massachusetts had standing, and that EPA could not avoid its statutory responsibility through policy preferences unrelated to the Act. EPA had to determine whether emissions endangered public health or welfare or give a lawful reason for not doing so.

Documentation

Official U.S. Reports judgment, Library of Congress

Case and date

Native Village of Kivalina and City of Kivalina v ExxonMobil Corporation et al., Ninth Circuit judgment filed 21 September 2012.

Court and location

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, California; appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Plaintiff / appellant

The federally recognised Native Village of Kivalina and the City of Kivalina, an Iñupiat community in Alaska facing severe coastal erosion and relocation pressures.

Defendant / appellee

ExxonMobil Corporation and numerous oil, energy and utility companies alleged to be major greenhouse-gas emitters.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote the opinion; Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton and Senior District Judge Philip M. Pro formed the panel. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong had dismissed the case below.

Summary and verdict

Kivalina sought damages under federal common-law public nuisance for climate-driven coastal erosion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal because the Clean Air Act displaced federal common-law claims over greenhouse-gas emissions, even though the requested remedy was damages rather than an emissions injunction. The court did not decide whether the community’s factual account of climate harm was false; it found that Congress had assigned regulation to EPA.

Documentation

Official Ninth Circuit opinion

Case and date

Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands, District Court 24 June 2015; Court of Appeal 9 October 2018; Supreme Court 20 December 2019.

Court and location

Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague, Netherlands, affirming lower-court judgments.

Plaintiff / claimant

Urgenda Foundation, acting in the public interest and initially alongside 886 individual citizens.

Defendant / respondent

The State of the Netherlands.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Supreme Court civil panel: Vice-President C. A. Streefkerk (presiding), G. Snijders, M. V. Polak, T. H. Tanja-van den Broek and H. M. Wattendorff JJ.

Summary and verdict

Urgenda argued that the state’s inadequate mitigation policy exposed residents to foreseeable climate danger. The Supreme Court upheld an order requiring Dutch greenhouse-gas emissions to be at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels by the end of 2020. It grounded the duty in Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, informed by climate science and the state’s “fair share”. The ruling became a model for rights-based mitigation litigation, while leaving the government discretion over policy instruments.

Documentation

Supreme Court judgment, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007

Case and date

Asghar Leghari v Federation of Pakistan, W.P. No. 25501/2015; initial orders 4 and 14 September 2015; final order 25 January 2018.

Court and location

Lahore High Court, Green Bench, Lahore, Pakistan.

Plaintiff / petitioner

Asghar Leghari, a farmer and lawyer.

Defendant / respondent

Federation of Pakistan and federal and provincial ministries, departments and agencies responsible for implementing national climate policy.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

Summary and verdict

Leghari alleged that government delay in implementing the National Climate Change Policy and its implementation framework threatened water, food and energy security and violated constitutional rights to life and dignity. The Court treated inaction as a rights issue, appointed a Climate Change Commission and required focal persons across government. In 2018 it closed the continuing proceeding after recording substantial institutional progress and created a standing committee to continue oversight.

Documentation

UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform case record

Case and date

Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZSC 107, 20 July 2015; Ioane Teitiota v New Zealand, CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, views adopted 24 October 2019 and published in 2020.

Court and location

Supreme Court of New Zealand, Wellington; subsequently the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Geneva (a treaty body, not a court).

Plaintiff / applicant

Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati, represented by counsel Michael J. Kidd.

Defendant / respondent

Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; before the Human Rights Committee, the State of New Zealand.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

New Zealand Supreme Court: Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O’Regan JJ. The UN stage was decided by the Human Rights Committee; separate opinions were issued by members Duncan Laki Muhumuza and Vasilka Sancin.

Summary and verdict

Teitiota sought refugee or protected-person status, arguing that sea-level rise, freshwater stress, overcrowding and land conflict made return to Kiribati unsafe. New Zealand courts rejected the claim because the Refugee Convention nexus and the imminent rights-risk thresholds were not met. The Human Rights Committee likewise found no violation on the facts, but held that climate and environmental degradation can, in principle, make removal incompatible with the right to life and the non-refoulement obligation. The case therefore opened a doctrinal pathway without creating a general “climate refugee” category.

Documentation

New Zealand Supreme Court judgment | UN Human Rights Committee case record and views

Case and date

Juliana et al. v United States et al., filed 12 August 2015; Ninth Circuit decision 17 January 2020; Supreme Court certiorari denied 24 March 2025.

Court and location

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Supreme Court of the United States.

Plaintiff / claimant

Twenty-one young people, including lead plaintiff Kelsey Cascadia Juliana; climate scientist James Hansen participated as guardian for future generations.

Defendant / respondent

United States of America and federal executive departments and officers.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

District Judge Ann Aiken. Ninth Circuit panel: Mary H. Murguia, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Josephine L. Staton; Judge Hurwitz wrote the majority and Judge Staton dissented.

Summary and verdict

The youth plaintiffs alleged that decades of federal support for fossil fuels violated constitutional rights and the public-trust doctrine. The Ninth Circuit accepted the gravity of the evidence but held, 2–1, that the plaintiffs lacked Article III redressability because the requested transformation of national energy policy exceeded a court’s remedial authority. Later attempts to amend the complaint did not revive the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined review in March 2025. The history illustrates how standing and separation-of-powers doctrines can terminate a case without rejecting its climate evidence.

Documentation

Official Ninth Circuit opinion | Supreme Court docket 24-405

Case and date

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others [2017] ZAGPPHC 58, 8 March 2017.

Court and location

High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, South Africa.

Plaintiff / applicant

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg.

Defendant / respondent

Minister of Environmental Affairs, Chief Director for Integrated Environmental Authorisations, Thabametsi Power Company (Pty) Ltd and other public bodies.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Judge John Murphy.

Summary and verdict

Earthlife challenged environmental authorisation for the proposed Thabametsi coal-fired power station. The Court held that climate-change impacts were a relevant environmental consideration under South African law and that a climate-impact assessment had to be undertaken before a lawful final decision. It set aside the ministerial appeal decision and required reconsideration. The case made climate assessment part of project-level administrative legality rather than treating emissions as an external policy matter.

Documentation

Official judgment, SAFLII

Case and date

Andrea Lozano Barragán and others v Presidency of the Republic and others, STC4360-2018, 5 April 2018; widely known as the Future Generations or Colombian Amazon case.

Court and location

Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Civil Cassation Chamber, Bogotá, Colombia.

Plaintiff / claimant

Twenty-five young people from different Colombian regions, including Andrea Lozano Barragán, Victoria Alexandra Arenas Sánchez, José Daniel Rodríguez Peña and Félix Jeffry Rodríguez Peña.

Defendant / respondent

The Presidency; Ministries of Environment and Agriculture; national parks authority; Amazon-region governors, municipalities and regional environmental authorities.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Reporting magistrate Luis Armando Tolosa Villabona; Civil Cassation Chamber.

Summary and verdict

The young claimants argued that accelerating Amazon deforestation increased national greenhouse-gas emissions and jeopardised their constitutional rights and those of future generations. The Court recognised the Colombian Amazon as an entity subject to rights and ordered a short-, medium- and long-term action plan, an intergenerational “pact for the life of the Colombian Amazon”, and municipal land-use revisions aimed at net-zero deforestation. Subsequent implementation has been uneven; the judgment’s importance lies in linking ecosystem rights, intergenerational standing and climate mitigation.

Documentation

Official judgment STC4360-2018

Case and date

Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General [2020] IESC 49, 31 July 2020.

Court and location

Supreme Court of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.

Plaintiff / appellant

Friends of the Irish Environment CLG.

Defendant / respondent

Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Chief Justice Frank Clarke delivered the principal judgment; the seven-judge court also included Irvine P, O’Donnell, MacMenamin, Dunne, O’Malley and Baker JJ.

Summary and verdict

The organisation challenged the government’s 2017 National Mitigation Plan. The Supreme Court quashed the plan because it was excessively vague and did not specify how the statutory objective of transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable economy by 2050 would be achieved. The Court allowed the organisation standing to pursue statutory legality but declined to decide broader constitutional and Convention rights claims. The case shows that administrative-law precision can produce a decisive climate remedy even when a court avoids recognising a new substantive right.

Documentation

Official Supreme Court judgment

Case and date

Neubauer et al. v Germany, consolidated constitutional complaints including 1 BvR 2656/18, order of 24 March 2021.

Court and location

Federal Constitutional Court, First Senate, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Plaintiff / complainant

Several groups of young complainants, including Luisa Neubauer, and complainants living in Bangladesh and Nepal.

Defendant / respondent

Federal Republic of Germany; the complaints challenged provisions of the Federal Climate Change Act.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

First Senate: Stephan Harbarth (President), Andreas L. Paulus, Susanne Baer, Gabriele Britz, Yvonne Ott, Josef Christ, Henning Radtke and Ines Härtel.

Summary and verdict

The Court held that the 2019 Climate Change Act was partly unconstitutional because it postponed too much mitigation after 2030, creating a severe future burden on the exercise of freedom. It did not derive an unlimited judicially enforceable right to a particular climate, but required the legislature to distribute the remaining emissions budget more foreseeably across time. Parliament amended the Act to set more detailed post-2030 targets. The judgment developed “intertemporal guarantees of freedom” as a constitutional language for future generations.

Documentation

Official English decision, Federal Constitutional Court

Case and date

Notre Affaire à Tous, Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme, Greenpeace France and Oxfam France v French State; liability judgment 3 February 2021, remedial judgment 14 October 2021, compliance judgment 22 December 2023.

Court and location

Administrative Court of Paris, Paris, France.

Plaintiff / applicant

Notre Affaire à Tous, Fondation pour la Nature et l’Homme, Greenpeace France and Oxfam France.

Defendant / respondent

The French State, represented through the Prime Minister and responsible ministries.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Collegiate administrative-court panels. The English institutional summaries located for this report do not reproduce the individual judges’ names; they are therefore not inferred.

Summary and verdict

The Court recognised ecological damage caused by France’s failure to meet its own emissions trajectory and held the state responsible for part of that damage. In October 2021 it ordered the government to repair the excess emissions attributable to the missed 2015–2018 targets by the end of 2022. In December 2023 it found that the remedial measures were sufficient for the quantified period and declined additional coercive measures. The litigation established state liability while also revealing the difficulty of converting aggregate emissions trajectories into enforceable, time-bounded repair.

Documentation

Administrative Court of Paris, official English case materials

Case and date

Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc, District Court 26 May 2021; Hague Court of Appeal 12 November 2024; Supreme Court cassation hearing 22 May 2026; judgment pending at the report freeze date.

Court and location

District Court and Court of Appeal of The Hague; Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague.

Plaintiff / claimant

Milieudefensie/Friends of the Earth Netherlands, six other NGOs and 17,379 individual co-claimants at first instance.

Defendant / respondent

Royal Dutch Shell plc, subsequently Shell plc.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

District Court: L. Alwin, I. A. M. Kroft and M. L. Harmsen. Court of Appeal: C. A. Joustra, J. J. van der Helm and P. Glazener. Supreme Court panel will decide the cassation; no final judgment had issued by 28 July 2026.

Summary and verdict

The District Court ordered Shell to reduce group-wide net emissions by at least 45 per cent from 2019 levels by 2030, treating Dutch unwritten duty of care, human rights and climate science as mutually informing. The Court of Appeal removed the quantified order in 2024, holding that Shell has a duty to counter dangerous climate change but that the evidence did not justify a single judicial percentage across all emission categories. Milieudefensie sought cassation. The case remains unsettled and must not be cited as a final corporate-reduction mandate.

Documentation

District Court judgment, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339 | Court of Appeal judgment, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2100

Case and date

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated v Environment Protection Authority [2021] NSWLEC 92, 26 August 2021.

Court and location

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Plaintiff / applicant

Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Incorporated.

Defendant / respondent

New South Wales Environment Protection Authority.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Chief Judge Brian J. Preston.

Summary and verdict

Survivors of the 2019–2020 bushfires sought an order compelling the EPA to perform its statutory duty to develop environmental-quality objectives, guidelines and policies. The Court held that, in current circumstances, the duty included instruments protecting the environment from climate change and issued mandamus. It did not prescribe a specific emissions pathway or require the precise 1.5°C measures sought by the applicant, leaving the content to the regulator’s lawful discretion. The case is an example of “action-forcing” litigation directed at an institution’s existing mandate.

Documentation

Published judgment [2021] NSWLEC 92

Case and date

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, 25 November 2022.

Court and location

Land Court of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Plaintiff / applicant

Waratah Coal Pty Ltd, applicant for the Galilee Coal Project mining lease and environmental authority.

Defendant / objector

Youth Verdict Ltd and Bimblebox Alliance Inc., with individual active objectors; the Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Science was a statutory party.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

President Fleur Kingham.

Summary and verdict

Youth Verdict and other objectors argued that the proposed thermal-coal mine would contribute to climate change and unjustifiably limit human rights, including the rights of First Nations peoples and future generations. After hearing evidence on Country as well as in court, President Kingham recommended that both the mining lease and environmental authority be refused. The recommendation assessed downstream combustion emissions rather than treating export as legally irrelevant and placed human-rights analysis within the mining-approval process. Waratah later withdrew its appeal.

Documentation

Queensland Human Rights Commission case note and judgment link

Case and date

Held et al. v State of Montana et al., Montana First Judicial District Court judgment 14 August 2023; Montana Supreme Court affirmance 18 December 2024.

Court and location

First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, Helena; Supreme Court of Montana, Helena, United States.

Plaintiff / claimant

Sixteen Montana youth, led by Rikki Held.

Defendant / respondent

State of Montana, Governor and state environmental, natural-resources, transport and public-service agencies.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

District Judge Kathy Seeley. Montana Supreme Court majority opinion by Chief Justice Mike McGrath; the court affirmed 6–1.

Summary and verdict

The youth plaintiffs challenged statutory restrictions preventing agencies from considering greenhouse-gas emissions and climate effects in environmental review. After a full trial, Judge Seeley found that the provisions violated the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of a clean and healthful environment and declared them unconstitutional. The state supreme court affirmed, holding that the youth had standing and that the challenged limitation materially impaired their constitutional environmental right. The remedy removed the statutory barrier; it did not itself prescribe an emissions budget.

Documentation

Montana Supreme Court opinion, 2024 MT 312

Case and date

Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd and others [2024] NZSC 5, 7 February 2024.

Court and location

Supreme Court of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.

Plaintiff / appellant

Michael John Smith, a Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Kahu elder and climate-change spokesperson.

Defendant / respondent

Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd, Genesis Energy Ltd, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel Ltd, Z Energy Ltd, Channel Infrastructure NZ Ltd and BT Mining Ltd.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ.

Summary and verdict

Smith alleged public nuisance, negligence and a proposed new climate-system damage tort against seven major New Zealand emitters, seeking declarations and injunctions rather than damages. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the claims should not have been struck out at a preliminary stage. It did not decide liability or endorse a particular emissions remedy; it restored the proceeding so that the law and evidence could be tested at trial. The judgment is therefore procedural but important: diffuse causation and the existence of many emitters were not treated as automatic bars to common-law development.

Documentation

Official Supreme Court judgment [2024] NZSC 5

Case and date

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, application no. 53600/20, Grand Chamber judgment 9 April 2024.

Court and location

European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Strasbourg, France.

Plaintiff / applicant

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, an association of older Swiss women, and four individual women.

Defendant / respondent

Swiss Confederation.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, presided over by Síofra O’Leary.

Summary and verdict

The association alleged that inadequate Swiss mitigation exposed older women to intensifying heat risks. The Grand Chamber found that the association had standing and that Switzerland violated Article 8 by failing to put in place and effectively apply a sufficiently coherent regulatory framework, including weaknesses in quantifying a national carbon budget and meeting past targets. It also found an Article 6 violation concerning access to court. The individual applicants were declared inadmissible because they had not met the Court’s high victim-status threshold. The judgment created a binding Convention standard while preserving national discretion over policy means.

Documentation

Official ECtHR judgment, HUDOC

Case and date

Duarte Agostinho and Others v Portugal and 32 Others, application no. 39371/20, Grand Chamber decision 9 April 2024.

Court and location

European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Strasbourg, France.

Plaintiff / applicant

Six children and young adults from Portugal.

Defendant / respondent

Portugal and thirty-two other Council of Europe member states named in the application.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, presided over by Síofra O’Leary.

Summary and verdict

The applicants alleged that respondent states’ emissions and insufficient mitigation exposed them to heatwaves, wildfires and other climate harms. The Court declared the application inadmissible. It refused the requested expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction to all respondent states and held that the applicants should first have used Portuguese domestic remedies against Portugal. Decided on the same day as KlimaSeniorinnen, Duarte shows that recognition of climate obligations did not eliminate jurisdiction, victim-status and exhaustion rules.

Documentation

Official ECtHR decision, HUDOC

Case and date

Saúl Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG, Higher Regional Court of Hamm judgment 28 May 2025, following proceedings begun in 2015.

Court and location

Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Hamm, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

Plaintiff / claimant

Saúl Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz.

Defendant / respondent

RWE AG, a German energy company.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Third Civil Senate; presiding judge Dr Rolf Meyer. The public materials used here do not consistently reproduce every panel member.

Summary and verdict

Lliuya sought a proportional contribution to protective works against a possible glacial-lake outburst flood from Lake Palcacocha, tying RWE’s historical emissions share to the cost of local risk reduction. After extensive scientific evidence and a site visit, the Court dismissed the claim because the probability of flooding his property did not meet the required concrete-danger threshold. It nevertheless accepted that a major emitter could, in principle, bear proportionate civil responsibility for climate-related risk; the failure was evidentiary on the specific danger, not a categorical immunity for emitters.

Documentation

Climate Litigation Database judgment record | Case documentation, Germanwatch

Case and date

Pabai Pabai & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796, judgment 15 July 2025; Full Federal Court appeal listed for 28–31 July 2026.

Court and location

Federal Court of Australia; trial judgment delivered by the single-judge Court. Appeal before the Full Federal Court in Melbourne, Australia.

Plaintiff / applicant

Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Guy Paul Kabai, Torres Strait Islander elders, bringing a representative proceeding for Torres Strait communities.

Defendant / respondent

Commonwealth of Australia.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Trial judge Michael Wigney J. The Full Court appeal panel had not been identified in the publicly indexed online file available at the report freeze point on 28 July 2026.

Summary and verdict

The applicants argued that the Commonwealth owed a duty of care to protect Torres Strait peoples, their lands, seas and culture from climate harm through adequate mitigation and adaptation. Justice Wigney accepted the grave, human-induced and potentially existential threat but held that Australian negligence law did not presently recognise the alleged duty, and that policy, causation and justiciability barriers defeated the claim. The applicants appealed. Because the appeal began on the report date, the trial dismissal is not presented as the final legal outcome.

Documentation

Federal Court of Australia online file | Applicant case timeline and appeal status

Case and date

Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, France Nature Environnement and City of Paris v TotalEnergies SE, Paris Judicial Court judgment 25 June 2026; appeal announced 27 July 2026.

Court and location

Paris Judicial Court, 34th Chamber, Paris, France; appeal intended for the Paris Court of Appeal.

Plaintiff / claimant

Notre Affaire à Tous, Sherpa, France Nature Environnement and the City of Paris.

Defendant / respondent

TotalEnergies SE.

Judge(s) / decision-maker(s)

Three-judge panel of the 34th Chamber. The court’s public communiqué does not name the individual judges, so names are not inferred.

Summary and verdict

The plaintiffs invoked France’s corporate duty-of-vigilance law, arguing that TotalEnergies’ plan inadequately identified and prevented climate risks. The Court ordered the company to revise the plan within six months so that it addressed emissions arising from customers’ use of sold oil and gas—Scope 3 emissions—and scheduled a compliance review. It declined to order a halt to new projects or a specific production-reduction pathway. TotalEnergies announced an appeal on 27 July 2026, arguing that global climate change and customer use fall outside the law’s intended reach. The order is therefore operative but not final.

Documentation

Paris Judicial Court press release, 25 June 2026 | TotalEnergies notice of appeal, 27 July 2026