Issue:
8021
/
Categories:
Features
,
ESG
,
Environment
,
Climate change litigation
,
Procedure & practice
,
CPR
Is litigation in its current form consistent with the UK’s carbon reduction commitments? Dr Mike Wilkinson & Eimear McCann make the case for rule reform
- Litigation can be hugely carbon inefficient.
- Many clients will want or need to pursue carbon reduction strategies, sometimes due to personal environmental beliefs, but also to meet ESG obligations.
- The courts can already find ways to litigate more sustainably, including through e-service, e-disclosure, e-bundles or hearings (or parts of them) being held virtually.
- However, such carbon reduction measures are far from routine and if we are to meet our legal obligations to transition to net neutrality, a shift in mindset is needed.
Litigants pay the courts not insignificant sums to litigate their civil disputes, not only through taxes but often through an issue fee of 5% of their claim’s value, capped at £10,000. If clients want or need to reduce the carbon emissions produced by litigation, neither the courts nor their lawyers should stand in their way.
Many clients do want to reduce carbon emissions. Some
