Climate Litigation Around the World: Grantham Institute’s 2025 Climate Litigation Snapshot
Last week, the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Grantham Research Institute released its annual stocktake of climate litigation, finding that there are now just shy of 3,000 climate cases across 60 countries worldwide. The report canvases key trends and evolutions in global climate change litigation, as well as the impacts it is having beyond the courtroom.
Below, we touch on a few of the case categories and key findings in the report, with a focus on what this means from a New Zealand perspective. You can read the full report here.
Key Findings
Some of the key findings from the report include that:
In 2024, 266 new climate cases were filed around the world. A number of these cases reached apex courts - such as the Supreme Court in New Zealand.
Over the past decade, litigation has played an increasingly prominent role in the domestic implementation of the Paris Agreement, with cases incorporating aspects of the Paris Agreement rising sharply from around 120 in 2015 to over 300 in 2021.
The US remains the country with the highest number of cases filed year on year, followed by Australia, the UK and Brazil.
Around 20% of cases filed were against companies or their directors and officers. Further, the range of companies involved continues to expand, including new cases against professional services firms for facilitated emissions, and the agriculture sector for climate disinformation.
Highly anticipated decisions in corporate climate litigation, including Milieudefensive v Shell and Lliuya v RWE affirmed that companies have a duty to contribute to combating climate change and in principle, they can be held liable for climate-related harm.
Political headwinds, particularly in the US, are changing the landscape of climate litigation globally. Around 25% of cases filed in 2024 were classified as involving an argument not aligned with climate goals. Of these cases, 88% were filed in the US.
Climate-Washing Cases
Climate-washing cases challenge inaccurate government or corporate narratives regarding contributions to the transition to a low-carbon future. 25 of these cases were filed in 2024. More than 30% of the climate-washing cases raise arguments relating to carbon credits, focusing on the integrity of carbon credits and the claims that can be made regarding the carbon emissions of a product or service when credits are purchased to ‘offset’ emissions from that product or service.
Close to home, last month, Energy Australia acknowledged that carbon offsets did not prevent or undo damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. It apologised to its customers for the way it marketed its Go Neutral gas products, acknowledging “that carbon offsetting is not the most effective way to assist customers to reduce their emissions” and committing to shifting its focus to direct emissions reductions. The announcement followed a climate-washing challenge brought by Parents for Climate Australia with Equity Generation Lawyers, which was settled out of court.
In New Zealand, two climate-washing cases have been filed in the New Zealand High Court over the last two years: our greenwashing case against Z Energy, which we filed alongside our friends at Consumer and ELI; and Greenpeace’s challenge to Anchor butter’s “100% grass fed” claim.
Turning off the tap cases
These cases target financial flows that support high-emitting activities incompatible with climate goals. They are filed against public and private financial institutions and aim to internalise climate risk into capital allocation, making carbon-intensive investments economically untenable. These cases continue to raise the profile of climate change among financial institutions, particularly pension funds.
For example, in March 2025, Dutch NGO Milieudefensie filed a new case against ING (one of the Netherlands’ largest banks), alleging that it is violating its duty of care under Dutch civil law and international soft law standards by failing to reduce its financed emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.
To our knowledge, this type of case has not been brought in New Zealand yet. Recent proposed changes to the Financial Markets Conduct Act, which would place a new duty on financial institutions to provide financial services to customers except in situations based on law or for valid and verifiable commercial grounds, might make establishing any such duty under NZ law harder.
Just Transition cases
In light of the Fast Track Approvals Act 2024, a category of note for New Zealand is the ‘just transition’ cases. These are cases which are brought by or on behalf of individuals and communities who are, or foresee, that they will be structurally disadvantaged or negatively affected by climate action measures. Most of the cases identified in the report are related to climate mitigation, particularly local implementation of renewable energy policies.
A recurring theme in these cases are the alleged harmful impacts from local mitigation projects, including:
Failures in procedural and recognition justice; or
Challenging laws and policies using distributive justice arguments (failing to address the burdens and benefits of climate action), pointing to inequitable burdens on already vulnerable communities.
As the Report notes, just transition cases are a warning sign for companies, investors, and governments: they demonstrate that bypassing social safeguards to fast-track transition infrastructure can backfire, and undermine the very goals of a just transition to a carbon-neutral and climate-resilient society.
While there can be benefits to a more streamlined approach, projects under the Fast Track Approvals Act 2024 may suffer from this same bypassing of social safeguards. The complexity surrounding the just transition in New Zealand is also heightened by the absence of strong central government leadership in managing the just transition. While the second emissions reduction plan is required to set out strategies for managing the effect of emissions reduction polices, the thrust of the plan instead focused predominantly on universal mechanisms (such as tax cuts) rather than anything that will provide targeted support.
Impact beyond the courtroom
To understand the whole story about climate litigation and its impacts, the Report also looks beyond the direct judicial outcomes in the courtroom. It looks at how climate litigation is being felt in three areas: climate governance, climate legislation, and financial-decision making. For example, the report found that the impact of climate litigation can include:
Influence on policy credibility and public support: A recent analysis of stock market reactions suggests that when courts require the government to revise or adopt climate policies, it can boost investors’ perceptions of the reliability and durability of those commitments. This indicates that litigation may influence not only legal mandates but also economic expectations around climate action.
Investor perceptions: New research has offered deeper insight into how investors perceive litigation risk and respond to litigation risk over time. The report notes a recent study which presents the first systematic global analysis of investor beliefs on the subject. Drawing on survey responses from 811 equity investors and analysts, the study finds that nearly 80% of respondents consider climate litigation to be at least a moderately important financial risk, with many believing it has already materialised. It suggests that litigation risk is perceived as sector-wide, not confined to ‘carbon majors’.
Climate litigation can shape public narratives: Climate litigation is increasingly recognised as a means of reshaping public narratives about climate justice, responsibility and governance, beyond just being a legal mechanism. For example, the report highlights a study which found that when people in Germany were presented with information about a decision, the Neubauer et al. v Germany ruling alongside climate policy proposals, their support for those policies increased significantly.
As the report notes, looking forward, the role of litigation in global climate governance will likely become even more pivotal (and contested) as litigation increasingly intersects with questions of democracy, corporate governance, and international law.