Monmouthshire [Sir Fynwy GB-FYN]

Cheshire East

Walsall

Merton

Cheshire West and Chester

West Lothian

Moray

Calderdale

Wales [Cymru GB-CYM]

Merthyr Tydfil [Merthyr Tudful GB-MTU]

Clackmannanshire

Wolverhampton

Mid-Ulster

Cumbria

Wandsworth

North Ayrshire

Camden

West Northamptonshire

Northumberland

Carmarthenshire [Sir Gaerfyrddin GB-GFY]

Windsor and Maidenhead

North East Lincolnshire

Cornwall

Wokingham

Newcastle upon Tyne

Coventry

Worcestershire

Norfolk

Cardiff [Caerdydd GB-CRD]

Wirral

Nottingham

Croydon

Warrington

Northern Ireland

Conwy

Wrexham [Wrecsam GB-WRC]

North Lanarkshire

Darlington

Westminster

North Lincolnshire

Derbyshire

West Sussex

Newry, Mourne and Down

Denbighshire [Sir Ddinbych GB-DDB]

York

North Northamptonshire

Derby

Shetland Islands

North Somerset

Devon

Neath Port Talbot [Castell-nedd Port Talbot GB-CTL]

Dumfries and Galloway

Nottinghamshire

Doncaster

North Tyneside

Dundee City

Newham

Dorset

Newport [Casnewydd GB-CNW]

Derry and Strabane

North Yorkshire

Dudley

Oldham

Durham, County

Orkney Islands

Ealing

Oxfordshire

East Ayrshire

Pembrokeshire [Sir Benfro GB-BNF]

Edinburgh, City of

Perth and Kinross

East Dunbartonshire

Plymouth

East Lothian

Portsmouth

Eilean Siar

Powys

Enfield

Peterborough

England

Redcar and Cleveland

East Renfrewshire

Rochdale

East Riding of Yorkshire

Rhondda Cynon Taff [Rhondda CynonTaf]

Essex

Redbridge

East Sussex

Reading

Falkirk

Renfrewshire

Fife

Richmond upon Thames

Flintshire [Sir y Fflint GB-FFL]

Rotherham

Fermanagh and Omagh

Rutland

Gateshead

Sandwell

Glasgow City

United Kingdom

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

On June 8, 2026, various faith-based groups, including the Methodist Churches in Great Britain, Colombia and Ireland, the Ecumenical Center for Communication in Latin America, and Epworth Investment, submitted a complaint to the UK National Contact Point (NCP) against HSBC Holdings plc. The complaint pertains to HSBC's provision of financial services to Glencore, the company operating the Cerrejón coal mine in La Guajira, Colombia. 

The complainants ask the UK NCP to examine whether this financial relationship is consistent with the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Guidelines regarding responsible business conduct and due diligence. The complainants argue that HSBC, and financial institutions more generally, are responsible for ensuring that financing and investment practices are aligned with human rights, environmental standards, and their own climate commitments.


Opportunity Green has filed a complaint with the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) against Scotland Gas Networks plc (SGN) concerning its hydrogen heating trial in Fife, Scotland. The complaint alleges that SGN has made misleading environmental claims about hydrogen heating in its websites and promotional materials directed at local residents and prospective trial participants. Those claims present hydrogen as “clean burning”, “zero-carbon”, and capable of providing “green energy” to millions of homes.

The complaint argues that these claims omit critical information and conflate different types of hydrogen with very different environmental impacts. This risks misleading consumers about the emissions, efficiency, and feasibility of hydrogen as a solution for home heating.

This is particularly important given that the UK Government has yet to make its final decision on the role of hydrogen in home heating, expected in 2026. Misleading green claims risk shaping consumer choices and policy decisions based on inaccurate information. If the gas grid were repurposed for hydrogen, up to 85% of UK households could be affected, making truthful, evidence-based information essential to protecting consumers and the public interest.

Greenpeace launched legal challenges against both the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field in the North Sea, collaborating with Uplift on the Rosebank challenge. The UK government had granted development consents after concluding that there would be “no significant effects” on the environment from drilling there. Rosebank is being developed by Equinor and Ithaca Energy, whereas Jackdaw is being developed by Shell.

Greenpeace and Uplift challenged: (1) the decision of the Secretary of State to allow the development of and production from the oil and gas fields, and (2) the Oil and Gas Authority’s decision to consent to the same. The applications were stayed pending the determination of the Supreme Court in Finch. After Finch declared that Environmental Impact Assessments must take into account downstream scope 3 emissions from developments, the UK government signaled its decision not to argue that the grants were lawful. As such, all parties agreed that both decisions were unlawful as the Environmental Impact Assessments had not considered scope 3 emissions. However, the Court of Session considered whether the decisions should be quashed and considered afresh, or whether the projects should be allowed to proceed.

Three grounds of appeal were insisted upon by the petitioners:
1. that the decisions were unlawful as they did not take account of downstream emissions. (This ground was relied on by each petitioner in each of the three petitions)

2. that the Scottish National Marine Plan was not taken into consideration. (This ground was relied upon only by Uplift in the Rosebank petition)

3. that the Oil and Gas Authority failed to give reasons for the decision. (Again, relied upon only by Uplift in the Rosebank petition)

The first ground was accepted in respect of both projects. The second and third grounds were rejected.

In January 2025, a decision by the Court of Session quashed the decisions of the Secretary of State and OGA. However, the Court of Session ruled that the reduction would be suspended until the fresh decision is reached. No oil or gas can be extracted from the sites during the suspension period.

In September 2025, Shell submitted a fresh environmental impact assessment for the Jackdaw gas field.

At the beginning of 2025, a group of landowners, farmers, and campaigners under the name the Alternative A5 Alliance (AA5A) filed for judicial review to challenge the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s (DfI) decision to continue the A5 dual carriageway project. The challenge was filed under Article 67BA of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993. The major infrastructure project was aimed at improving the A5 route between Derry and Aughnacloy, which has been a lasting safety concern, resulting in numerous civilian deaths. 

The plaintiff alleged that the DfI’s decision failed to comply with Section 52 of the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. This section mandates public authorities to have regard and act in accordance with the legally binding Climate Action Plan, which was not in place at the time the DfI decided to proceed with the project. On these grounds, the plaintiff contends that DfI did not have a proper legal framework to ensure it was complying with Ireland’s climate targets, specifically an emissions reduction cap. 

The plaintiff also contended that the defendant failed to take into account a critical relevant consideration, or a recently updated Climate Action Plan, when it approved the plan. The plaintiff also alleged that the DfI acted unlawfully by disregarding the Planning Appeals Commission’s recommendation of imposing a time limit for the project’s development, representing a breach in procedural fairness. The plaintiff contended that the lack of a time limit caused uncertainty for the landowners and residents near the project, failing to comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. 

The court issued a judgment stating that the DfI acted unlawfully by making a decision inconsistent with Section 52 of the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. The court also stated that the DfI ignored a critical relevant consideration as it proceeded without an updated Climate Action Plan and that DfI violated the principles of procedural fairness when prolonging uncertainty for landowners and residents. The court also ruled that the time limit violations constituted a human rights violation, and ultimately quashed the DfI’s decision to proceed with the project. 

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision. It reasoned that the High Court erred in effectively requiring a greater analysis of this distinct issue of GHG emissions arising from induced cross-border journeys than would be needed to allow the project to proceed. It said an approach which required inclusion of this consideration was too exacting and was over and beyond the requirement to have an adequate environmental impact assessment. The methodology and additional expert evidence filed on behalf of the DfI should have satisfied the High Court that the question of transboundary emissions was adequately addressed.  The Court concluded that provided the authority had considered the greenhouse gas emissions and could explain how the project fits within the broader effort to meet net zero targets, the Court would not interfere to shut down projects on a project-by-project basis where there was otherwise an appropriate EIA.

Geography

United Kingdom

Recent cases