ESG Disputes Bulletin – June 2026

BHP refused permission to appeal High Court’s finding of liability for 2015 Fundão dam collapse

On 6 May 2026, the Court of Appeal refused BHP's application for permission to appeal the High Court's landmark liability judgment in Municipio de Mariana & Ors v. BHP Plc & BHP Ltd [2025] EWHC 3001, a claim brought by over 600,000 claimants in relation to the 2015 Fundão dam collapse in Southeast Brazil. Following the Stage 1 trial of threshold liability issues in November 2025, the Court held that BHP was strictly liable for the dam collapse under Article 3(IV) of the Brazilian Environmental Law. BHP was refused permission to appeal by the High Court in January 2026 and subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for permission in February 2026, contending that the findings of strict liability and fault-based liability were wrong or unjust by reason of procedural irregularity. An expedited oral hearing of that application was heard on 12 March 2026.

BHP's grounds of appeal concerned, amongst other things, the High Court’s findings that it was strictly liable for the collapse as a result of being a “polluter”, that it had prior knowledge of the risks associated with the dam, and that the claims had been brought within the limitation period. The Court of Appeal concluded that none of those grounds had a reasonable prospect of success and that there was no other compelling reason to grant permission to appeal. The proceedings will now move to the Stage 2 trial, which will determine issues of causation and quantum. The trial is expected to run from April 2027 to March 2028.

Court of Appeal blocks environmental class action against water and sewerage companies 

On 5 March 2026, the Court of Appeal confirmed that proposed class representative claimant, Professor Carolyn Roberts, could not bring opt-out collective claims against six water and sewerage undertakings alleging abuse of their monopoly positions. The claim, which is valued at £800 million, would have been the UK's first environmental class action.

Professor Roberts initially brought the claim in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”), alleging that the water and sewerage undertakings had abused their monopoly positions by misleading Ofwat about the scale of sewage discharges, enabling them to overcharge more than 30 million consumers. The CAT struck out the claim on the basis that the claims were excluded by s 18(8) of the Water Industry Act. 

The key question before the Court of Appeal was whether a contravention of the water companies’ conditions of appointment, and specifically the duty to provide accurate reports to Ofwat, is an "essential ingredient" of the competition law claim. By majority (2-1), the Court of Appeal upheld the CAT’s decision (though not exactly for the reasons it gave) and dismissed the appeal, concluding that a claim for abuse of dominance cannot be pleaded as a free-standing claim, and necessarily relies upon a breach of the duty to report, which is a matter of enforcement reserved to Ofwat. Professor Roberts now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Dyson forced labour claims settled

Following the handing down of a significant case management decision in Kumar Limbu & Others v Dyson Technology Limited & Others [2026] EWHC 38 (KB) on 14 January 2026, the parties have agreed to settle the claim, bringing an end to the significant international supply chain litigation. 

In a case management decision handed down on 14 January 2026, the High Court directed that claims of the 24 migrant workers should be heard by reference to six lead claimants. The court also ordered a split trial, with issues of liability in negligence and intentional torts to be tried in respect of the lead claimants, and a trial on quantum to follow. An initial liability trial was set down for April 2027. The January 2026 case management decision is particularly instructive on the court’s approach to managing complex, high-value international group claims involving unevenly resourced parties. The court reiterated the need to promote parity between unevenly resourced parties, and emphasised the importance of ensuring the parties remained on an equal footing to enable their most effective participation in the trial process. 

While the proceedings have now been settled, this case provides important guidance on the court’s attitude to multinational supply chain claims and highlights the need for companies operating in global supply chains to actively identify, prevent and address human rights and labour risks across their extended supplier networks.

In other news concerning interesting contentious ESG developments in this jurisdiction:

• High Court orders split trial in Boohoo supply chain abuse claim: In a notable recent case management decision in California State Teachers' Retirement System & Ors v Boohoo Group PLC [2026] EWHC 335 (Comm), the High Court ordered that the issue of the shareholder’s reliance on Boohoo’s published information be dealt with in Trial 1, which is expected to commence in October 2027. The court stressed that claimants should be prepared to address all aspects of their claim from the outset and noted that in s.90A FSMA investor claims, the “norm” should be that (with the exception of quantum) all matters, including reliance, should be assessed at the first trial.

• UK’s largest-ever environmental pollution claim reaches the High Court: A group action with over 4,500 participants had its first procedural hearing at the High Court on 27 April 2026. The claimants allege private and public nuisance against poultry processor Avara Foods, its subsidiary Freemans of Newent, and Welsh Water in connection with run-off and sewage pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk. The claim attributes the pollution to the spreading of chicken manure on agricultural land and to sewage spills, and seeks both remedial action to restore the rivers and compensation for those affected.

• Luton Airport DCO challenge ends after appellant misses new seven-day appeal deadline: The legal challenge to the London Luton Airport Expansion Development Consent Order 2025 has been brought to an end following the Court of Appeal's refusal, on 20 May 2026, to grant an extension of time to file an appeal. The appellant filed its application for permission to appeal out of time. At a rolled-up hearing on 19–20 May, the court heard arguments that the delay had caused no prejudice and that the grounds were sufficiently strong, but ultimately refused the extension, underscoring the courts' strict adherence to the new appeal timetable.

Landmark French ruling finds cosmetics company liable for failing in its duty of vigilance

The Paris Judicial Court has delivered a landmark judgment against the Yves Rocher Group (“YRG”), a French cosmetics company, finding it liable for failing to fulfil its duty of vigilance in respect of activities carried out by one of its former Turkish subsidiaries. This judgment is notable on two counts: it is the first decision awarding damages under the French Duty of Vigilance Act ("devoir de vigilance"); and the first to apply the Act extraterritorially, treating it as an overriding mandatory provision in lieu of Turkish law.

The claim was brought by several NGOs and unions, together with 81 former employees, who alleged that over 130 workers were dismissed in 2018 after joining a trade union to challenge long working hours, gender-based discrimination, and inadequate workplace protections. The claimants argued that YRG had failed to publish any vigilance plan prior to 2020 and that, when a plan was eventually published, it contained no analysis of the risk of serious breaches of fundamental rights arising from subsidiary activities, effectively excluding the Turkish operations from scope. The court upheld the claim, finding that YRG’s failure to comply with the Act had directly contributed to the harm suffered by the dismissed employees. For more information, see our blog post.

A major oil and gas company climate case proceeds to the merits

The hearings in the landmark climate case against a major oil and gas company were held on 19 and 20 February 2026 before the Paris Judicial Court, with a decision expected before the summer of 2026.

Brought by a coalition of NGOs alongside the City of Paris, the action is grounded primarily in the 2017 Duty of Vigilance Law, with an additional claim under Article 1252 of the Civil Code, which enables courts to order preventive measures against environmental damage. The key legal questions are whether the Duty of Vigilance Law extends to climate change and whether the company bears responsibility for its Scope 3 emissions, which represent 90% of the group's total emissions. The Paris Public Prosecutor intervened in the proceedings and filed observations arguing that climate change falls outside the statute's scope.

BGH dismisses climate lawsuits against carmakers

The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) dismissed two high-profile climate lawsuits brought against BMW and Mercedes-Benz. The plaintiffs, senior officials of a prominent environmental NGO, had (amongst other things) sought to prohibit the car manufacturers from selling passenger cars with combustion engines after 2030.

The twin rulings are the first decisions by Germany's highest civil court on climate change claims against private companies. The court held that setting company-specific CO₂ limits is the responsibility of legislators, not of the courts, and that companies complying with existing emissions regulations cannot be required by civil courts to go further.

Read more in our blog post.

Implementation of anti-greenwashing directive

The legislator adopted the transposition act for the EU Empowering Consumers Directive into German law. The new rules intend to combat greenwashing and will apply from 27 September 2026. Companies should use the transition period to familiarise themselves with the new requirements and ensure compliance by reviewing and, where necessary, adapting their environmental marketing, product packaging, and labelling practices. Read more in our blog post and see our implementation tracker for selected EU member states.

Government plans to tighten environmental criminal law

The government has approved a draft act significantly overhauling the country's environmental criminal law. The Government Bill aims to implement the EU Environmental Crime Directive largely by way of a 1:1 transposition, though with selective extensions. After controversial discussions, it differs from the earlier ministerial draft in several important respects, including codified corporate fine criteria and new covert investigative powers. Read more in our blog post.

The Rider Question: Italian authorities challenge food delivery platforms on rider treatment

On the regulatory side, on 6 May 2026 the Italian Competition Authority opened investigations into several food delivery platforms over a potential gap between their projected ethical image and the actual working conditions of their riders.

On the criminal side, the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office placed the Italian subsidiaries of two major food delivery operators under judicial control (controllo giudiziario) following charges of rider exploitation, with measures taken in February 2026. This move is consistent with a broader enforcement trend that has been consolidating over recent years: the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office had previously applied a similar approach to the fashion sector.

Together, these proceedings reflect the increasing focus of the Italian authorities on platform-based business models and on their social governance practices.

Green claims face a double legal challenge in Italy

On 8 April 2026, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) concluded a moral suasion procedure against an Italian manufacturer of sustainable drinkware over allegedly misleading environmental claims – including references to “zero impact” and “climate neutrality” – which the company subsequently removed.

The same company is also the defendant in a collective injunction action brought by an environmental NGO on greenwashing grounds, now pending before the Court of Cassation after rejection at first instance and on appeal. The dual proceedings illustrate the increasing legal exposure faced by companies making unsubstantiated environmental claims. Notably, this case is not an isolated example: over the past year, collective injunction actions have emerged as an increasingly prevalent litigation tool in the fight against greenwashing.

Court orders conditional suspension of industrial plant operations over unacceptable environmental and health risks

In a ruling dated 26 February 2026, a civil court ordered the conditional suspension of production at a major industrial facility, following a collective injunction action (inibitoria collettiva) brought by local residents on environmental and public health. Unless prescribed remedial measures are implemented within six months, operations must be halted by 24 August 2026.

Milieudefensie commences second set of climate proceedings against Shell

On 21 April 2026 Vereniging Milieudefensie ("Milieudefensie") initiated a second set of civil proceedings against Shell plc ("Shell") before the District Court of Amsterdam. The new proceedings are entirely separate from the landmark first proceedings, which resulted in the Court of Appeal of The Hague's judgment of November 2024 and are now before the Dutch Supreme Court (discussed further below). Milieudefensie seeks significantly more extensive relief than in the first proceedings. Most notably, it claims that Shell must reduce its Scope 1, 2 and 3 CO₂ emissions in absolute terms by 70% for oil and 78% for gas by 2035 (against a 2022 baseline) and by 98% for both oil and gas by 2050. Milieudefensie additionally seeks to prohibit Shell from relying on divestment or carbon credits as a means of meeting any reduction obligation, and to require Shell and the Shell Group to cease the development of, and production in, new oil and gas fields, including through trading in products originating from such fields.

Shell has been ordered to appear before the District Court of Amsterdam on 29 July 2026. The proceedings are at an early stage, but they represent a material escalation in the scope of relief sought against major energy companies under Dutch law. 

District Court of the Hague reinforces the Dutch State's obligation to honour its climate commitments

On 28 January 2026, the District Court of The Hague found that the Dutch State has acted, and continues to act, in violation of the fundamental rights of the inhabitants of Bonaire under Article 8 ECHR, as well as under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR and Article 1 of the Twelfth Protocol, due to material shortcomings in its mitigation and adaptation measures. Applying the KlimaSeniorinnen framework, the Court found that Dutch and European reduction targets are likely misaligned with UN standards, that the State has failed to quantify the Netherlands' remaining carbon budget, and that it has unjustifiably delayed adequate adaptation measures for Bonaire despite long-standing awareness of the island's vulnerability. The Court further found unlawful and unequal treatment: whilst a coherent, integrated climate adaptation policy has been in place for the European Netherlands since 2016, no equivalent plan exists for Bonaire, which faces greater and more immediate climate risks.

Following the Urgenda approach, the Court ordered the Dutch State to (i) incorporate absolute economy-wide emission reduction targets compliant with UN commitments into national legislation within 18 months; and (ii) ensure that a national adaptation plan covering Bonaire meets the targets under the 2023 UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience by 2030. The judgment reinforces the Dutch State's obligation to honour its climate commitments and may inspire follow-up proceedings in other jurisdictions. Its direct impact on corporations is more limited, as private entities are not bound by human rights obligations in the same manner as states, though the broader standard-setting effect should not be underestimated. 

In other news concerning interesting contentious ESG developments in this jurisdiction:

• The cassation proceedings before the Dutch Supreme Court in the first Milieudefensie/Shell case continue to progress. Following the oral hearing on 22 May 2026, joinder and rejoinder submissions are expected by 17 July 2026. This case remains a defining reference point for climate litigation across Europe, with potential ramifications well beyond the Netherlands. 

• In January 2026, Dutch non-profit shareholder advocacy group Follow This announced the end of its pause on filing climate-related shareholder resolutions. Follow This has filed resolutions for the 2026 Annual General Meetings of Shell and BP, backed by 23 institutional investors with approximately €1.5 trillion in assets under management, as well as a group of current and former Shell employees. Significantly, Follow This has reframed its approach: rather than demanding Paris-aligned emissions reduction targets, the 2026 resolutions call on Shell and BP to disclose their strategies for creating shareholder value in scenarios of declining demand for oil and gas, using IEA reference scenarios. 

From Veto to Conditional Approval: APA Revises Environmental Assessment for €350 Million Alqueva Project

In January 2026, the Portuguese Environment Agency (APA) issued an unfavourable Environmental Impact Assessment Declaration in respect of the Alqueva Photovoltaic Solar Plant, a project promoted by FVC Group, Insun and Lightsource BP representing an estimated investment of €350 million. The promoters filed an administrative complaint contesting the decision, which led the APA to reverse its position in May 2026, issuing a conditional favourable Environmental Impact Assessment Declaration that is directly dependent on compliance with certain environmental conditions.

One of Portugal's largest solar projects draws thousands of public objections

Portugal’s Sophia solar project, an 867 MW photovoltaic development covering approximately 1,737 hectares promoted by Lightsource BP, has generated significant public controversy. A public consultation conducted by the Portuguese Environment Agency attracted over 12,000 submissions, the vast majority critical of the project. Opponents include the municipal authorities of three affected municipalities, as well as prominent environmental NGOs.

The Portuguese Environment Agency is expected to issue the environmental impact assessment in the near future, with further procedural steps anticipated thereafter. The outcome of that process, and the possibility of legal challenges to any environmental authorisation, remain matters of significant interest to developers, investors and lenders active in the Portuguese renewable energy market.

Fundamental rights vs. macro-farms: Spanish courts set a European precedent on environmental pollution and public authority liability.

In July 2025, the High Court of Justice of Galicia ruled that the Galician Regional Government (“Xunta”) and the Miño-Sil River Basin Authority (“CHMS”) had violated the fundamental rights of residents living near the As Conchas reservoir (Ourense) by failing to tackle the severe and persistent water pollution caused by intensive livestock macro-farms in the A Limia region. The Court found a clear causal link, supported by extensive scientific evidence, between uncontrolled animal waste spreading, nitrate contamination of groundwater and recurring toxic algal blooms in the reservoir. It ordered both authorities to (i) adopt all corrective measures necessary to halt the environmental degradation, suggesting measures such as a moratorium on new livestock licences and the deployment of a permanent water quality monitoring system, and (ii) pay several residents a monthly compensation of €1,000 from the date of their initial administrative claim, up to a maximum of €30,000 per person, for the moral damage suffered, which was deemed particularly significant given the close proximity of their homes to the reservoir. In February 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the appeals lodged by the Xunta and the CHMS, making the judgment final.

This is the first case in Europe to condemn the management of macro-farms from a fundamental rights perspective, and it carries significant practical implications. The ruling confirms that Spanish courts adopt a broad approach to standing in environmental cases, recognising not only direct victims but also consumer organisations. It also sets an important evidentiary precedent, as the Court accepted scientific evidence as sufficient to establish the causal link between the environmental damage and the authorities' failure to act. While this case was brought against public authorities, the legal reasoning linking environmental harm to fundamental rights violations is equally applicable in civil proceedings against private companies, potentially enabling individuals to seek moral damages, remediation measures and the cessation of the harmful activity.

The “Farmer Case”: Belgian court confirms jurisdiction over major oil and gas company but stays proceedings

In March 2024, a Belgian farmer – supported by three NGOs – started a lawsuit against a major oil and gas company before the Enterprise Court of Hainaut, arguing that its activities contribute significantly to global warming, which in turn disrupts the farmer’s operations (read more in our previous blog post). In an interim judgment dated 20 March 2026, the Enterprise Court confirmed its jurisdiction over the claims – ruling that the place in which the alleged damage occurred (here, Belgium) is sufficient as a connecting factor, regardless of whether the precise location of the causal event can be pinpointed – but stayed proceedings pending developments in a similar climate case brought against the same defendant before French courts to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. The Enterprise Court nevertheless stressed that its decision to stay proceedings does not amount to a waiver of jurisdiction, a delegation of judicial power, or subordination to the French court – it remains fully seised and will exercise its jurisdiction independently when proceedings resume.

Climate lawsuit expands to 906 plaintiffs

A climate lawsuit against Japan’s national government was expanded following a second filing on April 2, 2026, adding 454 plaintiffs and bringing the total to 906. The first complaint was filed in the Tokyo District Court on December 18, 2025, seeking ¥1,000 per claimant in damages and challenging the adequacy and legality of Japan’s February 2025 climate-policy package. The plaintiffs argue Japan’s targets are not consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C objective and that the government has unlawfully failed to put in place sufficiently binding measures to meet that standard. The matter remains pending, and the plaintiffs have sought consolidation of the two filings.

Judicial review filed by youth plaintiffs on forest cover commitment

On 28 February 2026 a judicial review application was filed in the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur by six Malaysian youths against the Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability and the Government of Malaysia. The application concerns Malaysia’s long-stated commitment to maintain at least 50 percent of its land mass under forest and tree cover, which has been reiterated in policy settings.

The applicants seek declarations that the government’s alleged inaction and decisions are inconsistent with constitutional and public law obligations, and orders compelling the government to take steps to ensure compliance with the 50 percent forest cover commitment, including periodic reporting. The claims rely on provisions of the Federal Constitution concerning the right to life and equality, and also refer to doctrines of legitimate expectation and public trust. A leave hearing was scheduled for 14 May 2026.

Administrative lawsuit filed following floods and landslides in Sumatra

In May 2026 a lawsuit was filed in the Jakarta State Administrative Court by residents affected by the 2025 floods and landslides in Aceh, North Sumatra, and West Sumatra against the central government, including the President and relevant ministers. The plaintiffs seek orders requiring the government to designate the disaster as a national disaster, provide reconstruction funding through the state budget, impose a temporary halt on new forest‑use, mining, and plantation permits until rehabilitation is completed, and review existing permits. The case is currently at an early stage of preparatory proceedings.

Civil court ruling on environmental class action against Chatree Gold Mine operator

A civil environmental class action was brought by villagers living near the Chatree Gold Mine in Thailand’s Phichit and Phetchabun provinces against its operator, Akara Resources Public Company Limited, a Thai subsidiary of Australian listed Kingsgate Consolidated Limited. The claims relate to alleged land and water contamination and associated health impacts affecting communities near the mine.

On 24 March 2026, the Bangkok Civil Court ruled against Akara Resources Public Company Limited, ordering compensation of up to THB 200,000 (approx. £4560) per person for 382 villagers, together with remedial measures including environmental rehabilitation and restrictions relating to tailings pond operations. Kingsgate Consolidated Limited, in its ASX announcement, stated that it will appeal the decision.

Supreme Court grants petition to hear appeal by oil companies in climate change litigation

On 23 February 2026, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (“SCOTUS”) granted a petition to hear an appeal by two major oil companies alleging that the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that the city and county of Boulder could sue and seek damages from the oil companies “for the physical and economic effects of climate change” under state law. Boulder claimed that the oil companies misled the public regarding the impacts of climate change while knowingly contributing to climate change by producing and promoting fossil fuels. SCOTUS will address (i) whether federal law precludes state law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international GHG emissions on the global climate and (ii) whether SCOTUS has jurisdiction under both statutes and Article III to hear the case.

District Court dismisses consumer claims in greenwashing litigation

On 2 February 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed claims by a proposed class of consumers alleging that multinational consumer health and pharmaceutical companies failed to disclose the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (more commonly, “PFAS” or “forever chemicals”) in their products. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies’ advertising campaigns created a false impression that these products were PFAS-free. However, in dismissing the case, the court held that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege the presence of PFAS in the products or the harm that would be caused to product users.

Department of the Interior pauses leases for offshore wind projects

On 22 December 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior paused leases for five major offshore wind projects, citing national security concerns related to radar interference. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management also issued director’s orders on the five projects – Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind 1 – suspending work on each for 90 days. All five developers challenged the orders in federal court and obtained preliminary injunctions allowing construction to resume, with the most recent injunction granted to Sunrise Wind by the District of Columbia on 2 February 2026. Litigation across all five projects remains ongoing. Most recently, on 12 May 2026, Empire Wind's developers escalated their ongoing challenge to the stop work order by filing a motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction seeking to definitively bar enforcement of the original order.

In other news concerning interesting contentious ESG developments in this jurisdiction: 

• Litigation related to government and corporate DEI programs continues. For example, on 6 February 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of certain provisions of President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders: “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”.

• Litigation challenging various recent actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is ongoing. For example, in March 2026, several states and a group of public health and environmental organisations filed petitions challenging EPA’s decision to repeal revised Mercury and Air Toxics Standards changes promulgated in 2024, which would have further limited mercury emissions from power plants.

Climate attribution in Australia's highest court

On 13 May 2026, the High Court of Australia heard argument in the first climate change case ever to come before it. The case concerns an approval to extend the operating life of, and expand activities at, an open-cut coal mine operated by MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd. The approval was challenged by a local community group in judicial review proceedings in the Land and Environment Court, which dismissed the challenge. On appeal, the NSW Court of Appeal overturned that decision and invalidated the approval. MACH Energy has now appealed to the High Court.

The central question is whether the decision-maker, in assessing significant likely impacts of the proposal 'in the locality', was required to consider climate change impacts from downstream (i.e. scope 3) emissions from coal extracted at the mine — 98% of which would be exported and burned overseas. Climate attribution science will be central to the outcome. The case is being closely watched, particularly by those in extractive industries, for how the Court treats that science and the extent to which it is used to inform causation tests under planning and environmental legislation. As Australia's highest court and depending on its ultimate decision, the case may significantly influence how lower courts approach similar challenges in future. The Court has reserved its decision. 

Private greenwashing claim dismissed

On 17 February 2026, the Federal Court dismissed a greenwashing claim brought by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility ("ACCR") against Santos, a natural gas producer. The ACCR had alleged that Santos made misleading climate-related representations in public-facing documents, in breach of the statutory prohibition on misleading or deceptive conduct.

The Court rejected the claim, finding (among other things) that:

• the relevant audience would have understood terms such as 'clean', 'zero emissions' and 'net zero' in a relative sense – compared to higher-emitting fuels – rather than as a suggestion that natural gas generates no emissions whatsoever; and

• Santos' Net Zero Roadmap was not misleading, as its statements were based on reasonable assumptions and Santos had reasonable grounds for making them.

This is the first time an Australian court has ruled on a private greenwashing action over a company's public climate and sustainability claims. It is also one of the first cases globally to consider whether a company's net zero targets and transition plans are misleading. The ACCR has appealed the decision. For a more complete summary of the proceedings and the Court’s decision, see this Allens Insight.

Greenwashing regulatory proceedings settled

In our February 2025 ESG Disputes Bulletin, we noted that greenwashing was one of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission's enforcement priorities for 2025. One of the proceedings commenced in that period – against Fiducian Investment Management Services Limited, the responsible entity of the Diversified Social Aspirations Fund – has now settled. In March 2026, Fiducian agreed to pay a penalty of AU$7.3 million.

ASIC had alleged that Fiducian made misleading representations in the fund's Product Disclosure Statements by stating it would invest in companies that 'aim to be positive for society and for the environment', while failing to monitor underlying investments for consistency with that commitment. ASIC also alleged that this failure breached Fiducian's statutory duties of care and diligence, making this the first ASIC proceeding to associate greenwashing with governance and compliance failures.

The settlement is subject to court approval. For a more complete summary of ASIC's case, see this Allens Insight.

Appeal from decision on novel climate duty

As reported in our October 2025 ESG Disputes Bulletin, the Federal Court held in Pabai v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 796 that the Commonwealth does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to protect them from the impacts of climate change. The applicants have since appealed that decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court. The appeal will be heard in July 2026.

New Zealand plans legislative change to shield polluters from climate litigation

The New Zealand government has announced plans to amend the Climate Change Response Act to prevent findings of tortious liability for harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, citing the uncertainty that ongoing litigation has created for business confidence and investment. The proposed changes will apply to both current and future proceedings, including a claim brought by climate campaigner Mike Smith against several major companies (including Fonterra, Genesis Energy, Z Energy, and New Zealand Steel) alleging public nuisance arising from their emissions, which is due to be heard in the High Court next year. The government's position is that climate change is best addressed through the regulatory framework Parliament has already enacted, and that tort law is ill-suited to resolving claims involving the complex environmental, economic, and social factors inherent in climate-related harm.

Labour Appeal Court confirms jurisdictional boundaries that standalone processing operations fall outside MHSA

In a judgment delivered on 17 February 2026, the Labour Appeal Court confirmed that standalone surface processing operations are regulated by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”), rather than the Mine Health and Safety Act (“MHSA”). 

Between 2016 and 2018, Rustenburg Platinum Mines (“RPM”), owned by Anglo American Platinum Mines Limited (“AAP”), disposed of its Rustenburg Section and Union Section mining operations and associated mineral rights to third parties, while retaining ownership of certain separate surface processing facilities, including smelters and refineries. After reassessing the applicable health and safety regulatory framework considering the revised organisational structure, RPM sought confirmation on whether the OHSA or the MHSA would apply to the retained operations.

The Court confirmed that the processing operations retained by RPM are not located in any core mining area and that RPM holds no mining right or permit over the specific land concerned. The retained operations constitute standalone industrial activities which do not fall within the extended concept of a “mining area” and in terms of which no “mineral deposit” is being exploited or processed. These factors confirm that such activities fall outside of the ambit of the MHSA and are governed by the OHSA. The judgment represents a seminal contribution to occupational health and safety jurisprudence and provides much-needed guidance on the regulatory treatment of standalone processing operations across the mining and metals sector.

Essential services designation for the wholesale supply of cash retained

SBV Services (Pty) Ltd ("SBV"), one of South Africa's leading cash management companies, plays a critical role in the national cash supply chain. Interruptions in cash availability endanger the life, health and safety of the population at large, including over 13 million social grant recipients who depend on cash to access their grants.

Following a notice published in the Government Gazette on 23 January 2026, the Essential Services Committee ("ESC") launched an investigation into the possible variation or cancellation of the 2019 designation of SBV as an essential service for the "wholesale supply of cash". The investigation was prompted by a request from the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union ("SATAWU"). The ESC panel ruled that it was not desirable to vary or cancel the designation, confirming that cash availability remains critical to the South African economy regardless of who renders the service and that rural communities continue to rely on cash over digital transactions. The matter engages a fundamental tension in South African constitutional and human rights law: the right of workers to strike, balanced against the obligation of the State to protect the socio-economic rights of millions of vulnerable South Africans.