By: Amanda Beattie and Zoe Jones

At a glance

•  According to the Grantham Research Institute’s recent Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot report, in 2024 Australia was second only to the United States in terms of the number of claims made relating to climate.
• Litigation is inevitably a driver of climate action and policy change, and increasing litigation in this space means that both governments and private sector entities alike need to grapple with increasing regulatory and public scrutiny.
• Recent decisions internationally, the Australian decision of Pabai and the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion on climate change illustrate the potential wide-ranging ramifications of and current key trends in climate-related litigation. It is clear that climate-related litigation is an increasing risk and is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
• In this first article of a series, we will examine the current landscape of climate-related litigation globally.

Introduction

The Grantham Research Institute reported at least 226 new climate cases filed worldwide in 2024 (report), bringing the total number of recorded climate claims between 1986 and 2024 to 2,967 claims across 60 countries. Of those, Australia accounted for 164 claims, second only to the United States.

The Grantham Report defines a “climate claim” as a case brought before judicial or quasi-judicial bodies that involves material issues of climate change science, policy, or law (report, page 8). The University of Melbourne adopts a broader definition which captures cases where climate change is a central or peripheral issue, or where climate concerns motivate the lawsuit or shape its implications for mitigation or adaptation. This includes some non-court proceedings such as tribunal decisions and regulatory complaints (report). According to the University of Melbourne, Australia has had 55 claims made in 2024 and so far 11 claims made in 2025.

Regardless of definition, climate-related litigation has become a prominent and permanent feature of the global litigation landscape. The Grantham Report notes the constant evolution of these cases: new claimants, novel causes of action, and expanding classes of defendants, including governments, corporations, financial institutions, and professional advisers. Parties and courts are increasingly alert to the tangible economic and social consequences of climate change, and the potential legal exposure that follows.

International landscape

The global picture of climate litigation is diverse, reflecting differences in legal systems, regulatory regimes, and societal pressures. Nonetheless, several cross-cutting trends are emerging that help predict the likely trajectory of Australian climate litigation.

United States

The United States remains the global leader in climate litigation, both by volume and by innovation in legal strategy. Early litigation in the 2000s focused on government inaction and regulatory failures, most notably Massachusetts v Environmental Protection Agency (2007), in which the US Supreme Court confirmed that greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

More recent US cases have shifted toward corporate accountability and consumer protection, targeting oil majors and energy producers for alleged “greenwashing” and misleading climate-related disclosures. Many US states, cities and counties are now pursuing claims alleging that fossil fuel companies misled the public about the risks of climate change and the companies’ own contributions to it. A recent example is the litigation against ExxonMobil, who has been the subject of two claims (made by the City of Boulder and San Miguel County in 2018 and the City of New York in 2021 (Case No. 451071/2021, NY Supreme Court)) concerning misrepresentation of the risks and impact of their fossil-fuel products on climate change. Whilst the New York filing was ultimately dismissed in large part due to insufficient evidence, and the Boulder filing remains undecided, these cases exemplify a broader global trend: plaintiffs are increasingly using litigation to test whether powerful entities can be held responsible for their role in shaping public understanding of climate risk. Such developments are likely to inform and influence future litigation strategies in Australia.

In terms of class action filings, consumer or investor class actions alleging that companies have misled in relation to their environmental claims (so-called “greenwashing”) remain a key feature of the US market. A recent example is the proceedings filed against Mondalez International Inc in the US District Court, Northern District of Illinois, (Case No. 1:25-cv-02139). The proceedings commenced in February 2025 on behalf of Cynthia Salguero and other consumers of Clif Kid ZBar and ZBar Protein (under the Clif Kid brand) marketed by Mondelez. The plaintiff alleged that Mondalez had engaged in deceptive marketing by labelling the ZBar products with representations such as “Climate Neutral” or “climate neutral certified” that misleadingly conveyed to consumers that the snack bars were environmentally harmless, or otherwise “climate-neutral”.

Mondelez’s defence put that its products’ packaging did not claim the bars themselves were climate neutral, but rather stated they were “Climate Neutral Certified” by a third-party organisation, called the Change Climate Project. In late October 2025, the proceedings were dismissed with prejudice, with the court agreeing that the representation on the packaging was “a true statement” (i.e., the product was certified by the third-party) and thus not deceptive. Though an example of an unsuccessful action, we can reasonably expect to see more greenwashing class actions regarding terminology such “net zero”, “carbon neutral”, “sustainable” due to consumer interest and increased scrutiny of such terms.

United Kingdom and Europe

In the UK and Europe, climate litigation has largely revolved around administrative and human rights-based challenges. In the UK, environmental groups have successfully challenged government decisions for failing to adequately consider climate targets, such as in Friends of the Earth Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2022). In that matter, the claimants challenged decisions made by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) in October 2021 relating to the UK Government’s “Net Zero Strategy” (NZS). The claimants asserted that the NZS, while ambitious in target (net zero by 2050), did not sufficiently demonstrate how the carbon budgets would be met, and lacked transparency for Parliament/public scrutiny.

In his July 2022 judgment, Mr Justice Holgate held that the decision made by BEIS was unlawful in part, and ordered the Secretary of State to remedy the defects and produce a report compliant with relevant statutory duties by 31 March 2023. The judgment reinforces that governments must not only set ambitious targets but also underpin them with sufficiently detailed, transparent policies and reporting. Though UK-specific, the reasoning aligns with international trends of courts holding public authorities accountable for climate-related obligations

At the European level, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recently handed down a landmark decision in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v Switzerland (2024), finding that the Swiss government’s insufficient climate action violated the applicants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In that matter, an association of Swiss senior women claimed that Switzerland was failing to take adequate measures on climate change, increasing the risk of serious harm (especially to older women during heat waves), and thus violating their convention rights. The applicants had previously exhausted Swiss domestic remedies (including Swiss Federal Supreme Court) which had dismissed their claims on grounds that they lacked “sufficient intensity” of affectation. This ruling is expected to embolden similar claims across Europe, using human rights frameworks to hold governments accountable for climate inaction.

Developing countries and the Global South

Climate litigation is not confined to industrialised nations. Courts in countries such as Costa Rica, Colombia, and the Philippines have recognised the link between environmental degradation and fundamental human rights. The Colombian Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in the Future Generations case exemplifies this rights-based approach. In that matter, a group of 25 children and youths (aged 7–26) brought a tutela action against the Colombian government claiming that deforestation was causing increased greenhouse gas emissions, climate-change risks and ecosystem degradation which would affect present and future generations.

In its decision, the Court held that the rights to life, health, minimum subsistence, freedom and human dignity are substantially linked to the environment and ecosystem, and deforestation in the Amazon poses an “imminent and serious” threat to present and future generations, due to its role in greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem disruption, water-cycle impacts and broader climate change. The Court ultimately recognised the Amazon region as an “entity subject of rights”, providing a state obligation to ensure the protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration of the region.

Youth-led climate litigation actions are also ongoing in Costa Rica, where in 2023 the Strategic Committee for Youth Participation and Advocacy) filed amparo (constitutional protection action) alleging the State had breached their right to access to environmental information by reserving or failing to disclose baseline data and thematic details (transport, energy, forests, water, etc.). This proceeding remains ongoing.

Together, these developments demonstrate that climate litigation is evolving from isolated regulatory challenges into a globally coordinated movement grounded in accountability, transparency, and human rights. As courts around the world continue to expand the legal foundations for climate responsibility, Australian litigants and regulators alike can expect these trends to increasingly shape domestic legal strategies and expectations.

ICJ decision

A key international development shaping this space is the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion on climate change, delivered in July 2025. The opinion addressed two questions posed by the UN General Assembly, following an initiative led by Vanuatu and supported by a coalition of small island developing states.

The Court was asked to clarify:

1. The obligations of States under international law to protect the climate system and environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions for present and future generations; and
2. The legal consequences where States, through acts or omissions, cause significant harm to the climate system and environment, particularly in relation to vulnerable States and communities.

The advisory opinion attracted unprecedented engagement, with 91 written submissions received and 97 participating States and organisations present during oral hearings.

In its advisory opinion delivered on 23 July 2025, the ICJ concluded that the duty to prevent significant environmental harm is an obligation of due diligence. The Court found that ‘due diligence’ in this contest has several elements, and that it “calls for an assessment in concreto”. That duty requires “States taking, to the best of their ability, appropriate and, if necessary, precautionary measures, which take account of scientific and technological information, as well as relevant rules and international standards, and which vary depending on each State’s respective capabilities. Other elements of the required conduct include undertaking risk assessments and notifying and consulting other States, as appropriate.” [136]

While not legally binding, the advisory opinion will likely influence both international law and domestic jurisprudence. It provides authoritative guidance on States’ responsibilities and could inform arguments in future domestic cases, particularly where claimants seek to align national conduct with emerging international obligations.

Looking ahead

The international trends outlined above are highly relevant to Australia. Climate litigation is shifting beyond traditional administrative challenges to encompass corporate governance, financial disclosure, and consumer protection. More broadly, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion has reinforced that climate responsibility is becoming embedded in international law and moral expectation.

While not binding, it is likely to influence domestic arguments and judicial reasoning, particularly around due diligence and intergenerational equity. Collectively, these developments mark climate litigation’s evolution into a mainstream tool of accountability that cuts across jurisdictions and sectors.

In our next article, we will examine the state of climate-related litigation in the Australian landscape and how these international trends are shaping domestic claims and regulatory responses.

Key Contacts & Updates

Stay tuned for our future articles where we will take a deeper dive into Climate Litigation. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to our authors.

Alternatively, please complete the form below to subscribe to our Climate Litigation updates.