UK Law and Practice Contributed by: Ruth Knox and Julian Wolfgramm-King, Paul Hastings LLP
scheme”, and the HyNet Cluster was subject to its own EIA requirements, thus its impacts were not to be taken into account in assessing the Development’s own impacts. Moreover, the CO2 emissions deriving from hydrogen production wouldn’t be indirect, sec - ondary, or cumulative effects of the Development, as a matter of causation. Regarding ground 3, the court held that the Secretary of State had “sufficient infor - mation to be satisfied that there would be no adverse effects upon the integrity of any relevant protected site”, therefore “it was rational to conclude further consultation with the public was unnecessary.” Lastly, the court found that the claimant had not acted suf - ficiently promptly in filing the claim three months after the relevant decision had been made; and would have disallowed the application on this basis. The claimant has stated it has appealed the decision. The Shell Decision – Section 172 and Section 174 Companies Act In ClientEarth v Shell plc [2023] EWHC 1897, the High Court dismissed ClientEarth’s derivative claim pursu - ant to Section 261 (1) of the Companies Act 2006 against the board of Shell in its capacity as a share - holder, alleging that Shell’s directors acted in breach of their duties under: • Section 172 Companies Act 2006 to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its mem - bership as a whole; and • Section 174 Companies Act 2006, which requires directors to act with reasonable care, skill and dili - gence because of their failure to develop a robust climate change risk mitigation strategy. The claim was rejected on the basis that ClientEarth had not brought the case in good faith, and there was no universally accepted methodology as to how Shell might be able to achieve the targeted reductions referred to in its energy transition strategy.
Prospectus Regulation did not impose a separate requirement for the issuer to disclose its assessment of risk and materiality. Misrepresentation Act 1967; Law of Negligence; Misrepresentation Statutory claims on the basis of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 or civil claims on the basis of the law of neg - ligence or misrepresentation are not yet a significant feature of English law. Nevertheless, these avenues remain open to non-governmental organisations who may be frustrated at the variable outcomes resulting from pursuit of the other causes of action summarised in this chapter. Product-related claims We also know that substantial litigation in respect of “greenwashing”, or investigations in respect of mis - representation of the nature and depth of a company’s “green” credentials, has emerged in the UK in recent years. The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has proven to be a prolific enforcer of anti-greenwashing provisions in the UK Code of Non-broadcast Adver - tising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (UK CAP). By way of example, the ASA upheld a series of com - plaints against HSBC on the basis that it had acted in breach of the UK CAP through a series of adver - tisements featuring environmental claims that omit - ted material information in respect of its contribution to carbon dioxide and GHG emissions through other business lines. Claims may also be brought on the basis of (i) the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regu - lations 2008 and (ii) consumer protection law where a consumer relied on greenwashing claims as part of their purchase of a particular product regulated by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Human rights We are starting to see the emergence of litigation founded on various articles of the European Con - vention on Human Rights where a claimant has suf - fered as a result of deteriorating air quality – eg, The King ( on the application of Matthew Richards ) v EA AC-2025-LON-000626. In that case, the High Court approved an application for judicial review of a fail - ure by the Environment Agency to take over opera -
Other Key Causes of Action UK Prospectus Regulation
In R ( Client Earth ) v Ithaca Energy Plc [2023] EWHC 3301 (Admin), the High Court refused ClientEarth’s application for permission to apply for judicial review of the FCA’s decision to approve the prospectus of UK oil and gas company, Ithaca Energy plc. The UK
110 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook