{"title":"ClientEarth v Shell plc and the (Un)Suitability of UK Company Law and Litigation to Pursue Climate-Related Goals","authors":"P. Iglesias-Rodríguez","doi":"10.1093/jel/eqad029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In February 2023, ClientEarth filed a derivative claim in the High Court of England and Wales against the Board of Directors of Shell plc for alleged breaches of their duties under the Companies Act 2006. According to ClientEarth, Shell’s Board of Directors has failed to put in place an energy transition strategy consistent with the Paris Agreement, increasing the exposure of Shell plc to climate risks and hindering its long-term commercial viability. This analysis assesses the legal grounds of ClientEarth’s claim in light of the UK’s company law framework, and the High Court’s judgements of May and July 2023 dismissing ClientEarth’s application. It argues that, despite the lack of solid legal grounds for ClientEarth’s derivative claim, this case may serve to advance climate-related goals. More generally, the analysis reflects on how this dispute evidences the growing gap between the objectives of environmental law on the one side and those of company law on the other side.","PeriodicalId":46437,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqad029","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In February 2023, ClientEarth filed a derivative claim in the High Court of England and Wales against the Board of Directors of Shell plc for alleged breaches of their duties under the Companies Act 2006. According to ClientEarth, Shell’s Board of Directors has failed to put in place an energy transition strategy consistent with the Paris Agreement, increasing the exposure of Shell plc to climate risks and hindering its long-term commercial viability. This analysis assesses the legal grounds of ClientEarth’s claim in light of the UK’s company law framework, and the High Court’s judgements of May and July 2023 dismissing ClientEarth’s application. It argues that, despite the lack of solid legal grounds for ClientEarth’s derivative claim, this case may serve to advance climate-related goals. More generally, the analysis reflects on how this dispute evidences the growing gap between the objectives of environmental law on the one side and those of company law on the other side.
期刊介绍：
Condensing essential information into just three issues a year, the Journal of Environmental Law has become an authoritative source of informed analysis for all those who have any dealings in this vital field of legal study. It exists primarily for academics and legal practitioners, but should also prove accessible for all other groups concerned with the environment, from scientists to planners. The journal offers major articles on a wide variety of topics, refereed and written to the highest standards, providing innovative and authoritative appraisals of current and emerging concepts, policies, and practice. It includes: -An analysis section, providing detailed analysis of current case law and legislative and policy developments -An annual review of significant UK, European Court of Justice, and international law cases -A substantial book reviews section
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
