CLA News / Environmental and Social Governance Litigation: Updates from England and Wales By Maximilian Taylor
Pollution
On 14th November 2025, the High Court of Justice in England handed down its judgment for the first stage trial in Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group [2025] EWHC 3001 TCC.[1] This case concerned the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam in Brazil, part of the Samarco Germano-Alegria iron ore mining complex. The dam collapse caused massive environmental damage including the deaths of 19 people and the destruction of the nearby village of Bento Rodrigues. The claim, made by more than 600,000 claimants, was brought in London on the basis that BHP UK was the parent company for the dam’s owner and operator, Samarco. Applying Brazilian law, the Court made the following findings.
Firstly, the Court held that the dam’s collapse was caused by the soils used in its construction liquefying due to a failure to properly drain. Secondly, BHP UK was strictly liable for damages to the environment and third parties[2] because it was directly or indirectly responsible for the pollution as the owner of Sanmarco. Thirdly, BHP UK was at fault because the risk of the dam’s collapse as it indeed occurred was known or foreseeable.[3] Notwithstanding this fault-based liability, BHP UK were not in breach of their controlling shareholder duties under Brazilian corporate law. Fourthly, the claim was not time-barred because a combination of prosecutions, judicial protest, incapacity and exceptionally equivocal knowledge of harm suffered interrupted the prescribed period after which a private claim for civil compensation would be prohibited. Fifthly, settlement agreements between some claimants and the defendants were presumed validly entered into, however, the Brazilian Consumer Defence Code did not apply as they were not consumer contracts. Some agreements were viewed as adhesion contracts, which would be construed in favour of the claimant in case of ambiguity, and agreements could later be found to be invalid as a matter of contract law (notwithstanding judicial or legal oversight). Finally, the Court held that municipal government was not prohibited by the Brazilian Constitution from bringing a claim and therefore had standing in these proceedings.
A second-stage trial, which will cover claimant entitlement and quantum in light of the settlement agreements has been listed for October 2026. Meanwhile, the High Court has refused BHP UK’s application for permission to appeal, however, BHP UK intends to apply to the Court of Appeal for its permission instead.[4]
Climate Change
Survivors of Typhoon Odette (known internationally as Typhoon Rai) have filed a claim in the High Court of Justice of England against Shell (Odette/Shell). They are seeking damages under the law of The Philippines for Shell’s alleged role in anthropogenic climate change. Typhoon Odette struck The Philippines in late 2021 with 170mph winds, the strongest storm in the nation’s history. 400 people were killed, 2,000 buildings were destroyed and hundreds of thousands were displaced.[5] Importantly, a study conducted by the scientists at Centre for Environmental Policy (Imperial College London), the University of Sheffield and the Grantham Institute concluded that anthropogenic climate change has doubled the risk of storms like Typhoon Odette and increased their likely severity.[6]
Odette/Shell is the first civil claim to be brought for damages which have actually been suffered and are directly linked to anthropogenic climate change, as opposed to future harms.[7] It has been brought in England as the domicile of Shell, pursuant to the Rome II Regulation. The ruling will have implications for the entire Shell group.[8] The 67 claimants, who have instructed Hausfield, allege that Shell: negligently trebled its greenhouse gas emissions (which account for over 2.5% of all such historically and worldwide), from 1965-2021, despite knowing the risks; was unjustly enriched by its increased sale of fossil fuels; violated the claimants’ constitutional right to a balanced ecology; and/or engaged in a campaign of climate change denial.[9] However, Shell (in a statement to the BBC) denied that it had unique knowledge about climate change.[10]
As noted by barrister Harj Narulla, the bar to proving causation between the actions of fossil fuel companies and damages to individuals is high but lowering. Particulars of claim are expected in the middle of this year.[11]
Sustainable Advertising
In three separate rulings,[12] the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) banned three misleading adverts for sustainable clothing by Lacoste, Nike and Superdry.[13] The Committee of Advertising Practice Code states that:
‘…the basis of environmental claims must be clear…and that absolute environmental claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the ad stated otherwise.’
Guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority also states that:
“…absolute claims – like… ‘sustainable’ – are much more likely to be inaccurate and to mislead consumers.… Consumers are likely to assume that the product as a whole has a positive environmental impact, or at least no adverse impact.”[14]
In Lacoste’s case, it changed its fabrics in order to achieve a 19% reduction in the environmental footprint of the raw materials used and a 17% environmental footprint reduction for its manufacturing processes (2022-2025). The issue was the advert suggested the entire sustainable children’s clothing line had no negative environmental impact, which Lacoste could not prove.[15]
In Nike’s case, it used a ‘sustainable materials’ label if a product was made with at least 50% recycled materials. Its advertised tennis shirts used 75% recycled materials. The ASA held the advert to be misleading as the sustainability analysis did not account for the entire production lifecycle.[16]
In Superdry’s case, it ran an advertising campaign entitled ‘Sustainable style. Unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability’. The evidential basis for this claim was a finding in the company’s Financial Year 2024 Sustainability Report that 64% of all clothing contained a sustainably sourced material. Superdry also cited its FY2024 Full Product Order Book, which showed that 40% of all of its used raw materials contained recycled and low environmental impact fabrics. On review, Superdry removed the advert on the basis that the full life cycle of their products was publicly unavailable.[17]
Author: Maximilian Taylor
About the author
Maximilian Taylor is a barrister of The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple and a YCLA member for England and Wales.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] ‘Municipio de Mariana -v- BHP Group – summary ‘ (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 14th November 2025) https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Municipio-de-Mariana-v-BHP-Group-Summary.pdf accessed 26th February 2026.
[2] Under Art 14, para 1 of the Environmental Law.
[3] Municipio de Mariana v BHP Group [2025] EWHC 3001 TCC [1112].
[4] ‘ESG Bulletin – January 2026’ (Dentons, 20th January 2026) https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/newsletters/2026/january/20/uk-esg-bulletin/esg-bulletin-january-2026 accessed 26th February 2026.
[5] Matt McGrath, ‘Shell facing first UK legal claim over climate impacts of fossil fuels’ (BBC News, 11th December 2025) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r9p1ypyjyo accessed 25th February 2026.
[6] Ben Clarke, Sihan Li, Ralf Toumi and Nathan Sparks, ‘The influence of anthropogenic climate change on Super Typhoon Odette (Typhoon Rai) and its impacts in the Philippines’ (EGUsphere, 13th June 2025) https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-665/egusphere-2025-665.pdf,
p 38, accessed 25th February 2026.
[7] Jhesset O Enano, ‘Is Shell to blame for a ‘super typhoon’? Philippines survivors to sue oil giant in legal first’ (The Guardian, 23rd October 2025) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/23/we-are-now-fighting-back-philippines-typhoon-survivors-to-sue-shell-for-climate-harms accessed 25th February 2026.
[8] ‘Shell hit with legal action over climate damages by Typhoon Odette survivors’ (Hausfield, 23rd October 2025) https://www.hausfeld.com/en-gb/news/shell-hit-with-legal-action-over-climate-damages-by-typhoon-odette-survivors accessed 25th February 2026.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Cf fn 1.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Archie Mitchell, ‘Nike, Superdry and Lacoste ads banned over misleading green claims’ (BBC News, 3rd December 2025) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgm79djr9yo accessed 26th February 2026.
[13] ASA Ruling on Nike Retail BV, 3rd December 2025; ASA Ruling on Supergroup Internet Ltd, 3rd December 2025; and ASA Ruling on Lacoste E-commerce t/a Lacoste, 3rd December 2025.
[14] Competition and Markets Authority, ‘Complying with consumer law when making environmental claims in the fashion retail sector’, p 3, para 2.7.
[15] ASA Ruling on Lacoste E-commerce t/a Lacoste, 3rd December 2025.
[16] ASA Ruling on Nike Retail BV, 3rd December 2025.
[17] ASA Ruling on Supergroup Internet Ltd, 3rd December 2025.
