In 2009, a well off the coast of Western Australia let a lot of oil into the Timor Sea. The leak lasted for two and a half months, destroying thousands of Indonesian farmers’ seaweed crops and causing catastrophic damage to marine wildlife.

The well’s operator reached a settlement with over 15,000 Indonesian farmers who had filed a class action suit against it at the end of 2022. PTTEP Australasia agreed to compensate them with A$192.5 million, or £102 million, without admitting responsibility.

“This was a substantial agreement. . . According to Rebecca Gilsenan, a lawyer at Maurice Blackburn who was on the farmers’ side, “It was quite a thrill when we settled.” PTTEP didn’t say anything.

However, when the settlement was finally reached, it wasn’t just the Indonesians who felt relieved. Harbor Prosecution Subsidizing, a UK-based firm that gives support to complex claims as a trade-off for a portion of the returns, spent more than £17mn working on it, a financial plan that included cash for a boat and the rough terrain motorbikes expected to arrive at ranchers in distant areas and enroll them to the activity. Harbour received £43 million, or just over two-fifths of the award, in return.

According to Gilsenan, “It’s always difficult for people to have significant amounts deducted from their compensation.” Yet, all of [the farmers] hammered out that deal.”

Maurice MacSweeney, head of lawful money and deals arranging at Harbor, says PTTEP “set up truly a battle” and notes that organizations with “abundant resources” make bringing such difficulties hard for those without the monetary capability.

Over the past few years, the number of international cases involving environmental and climate issues has increased rapidly, with cases seeking compensation from businesses for environmental damage gaining popularity.

One of the biggest challenges the mining company BHP faces in London is: a £36 billion class action lawsuit brought by over 700,000 claimants for losses caused by Brazil’s Fundo tailings dam’s collapse in 2015. The catastrophe polluted hundreds of kilometers of waterways and released enormous quantities of mining waste.

“If Brazilians are asked, “Where were you when it happened?” People are aware, according to Ana Carolina Salomo, partner, and chief investment officer at Pogust Goodhead, which is representing the claimants. It’s similar to our 9/11.

Funded by litigation investors like Brazil’s Prisma Capital and the UK’s North Wall Capital, the case has already cost £70 million to bring.

BHP stated that it would “continue to defend the case” and “denies the claims brought in the UK in their entirety.”

With cases filed in courts all over the world, from Europe to Australia, litigation is also becoming the preferred method for compelling governments and businesses to take swifter action on climate change.

“I believe we’re entering . . . a brilliant second for environment case,” says Jolyon Maugham, the pioneer behind the non-benefit Great Regulation Venture. ” It depends on both what resonates in their social environment and their comprehension of the limits imposed by politicians.

Such cases are “totally important to view individuals to be answerable for not making enough move on environmental change”, as per Ian Fry, the UN’s exceptional rapporteur on the advancement and security of common liberties with regards to environmental change, who is ordering proof on environment-related regulation and prosecution.

The costs are typically covered by crowdfunding campaigns or charitable organizations like the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and the Foundation for International Law for the Environment.

However, a new focus on corporate greenwashing and the growing interest in cases seeking compensation for climate and environmental damage are turning legal disputes into business opportunities. Proficient suit funders, supported by financial backers going from benefits assets to family workplaces, need to bring in cash from environment-related claims.

While some have applauded this development, others point out that investors prioritize different things than claimants and non-profits and that investors’ fees are not always transparent. Concerned about the expanding market, EU lawmakers have proposed new regulations to oversee the sector.

There are also worries that funders who are only interested in making a buck will pick cases based on how likely they are to win or how much money they might get, rather than trying to have the biggest possible impact on society or the environment.

However, funders argue that they are required. According to Stephen O’Dowd, senior director of legal finance at Harbour, “it was a very hard case” and that the amount of money required to challenge PTTEP was well beyond the means of Indonesian farmers. . . Because we paid for the claim, everyone thought we were mad.

A turning point A lot of environmental litigation has been about getting compensation for specific things like oil spills. But right now, specialized law firms, scientists, and non-profits are looking into potential claims that a company should be held accountable for its role in climate change. It’s just a matter of finding the right case, according to many lawyers.

Martyn Day, co-founder of the law firm Leigh Day, asserts, “I am optimistic that we will bring a [damages] case and we’ll be successful.” Such a case would “ideally achieve huge change with regards to how the multinationals work . . . We need to find the right case, the right law, and funders who are willing to assist.

Two climate damages test cases against alleged corporate polluters are currently in the process of being filed, one against energy giant RWE and the other against cement manufacturer Holcim. These cases are being closely watched.

Organizations likewise face developing legitimate dangers now that different controllers, including those for rivalry, publicizing and capital business sectors in different nations, have corporate greenwashing and environment related divulgences all the more decisively in their sights, and as extremist gatherings become investors in dirtying organizations to challenge environment procedures that they consider lacking.

According to Alex Cooper, an attorney with the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative, a flurry of significant corporate climate cases was “probably two to three years off.” . . However, I believe it is on its way.

Organizations, particularly those creating or consuming non-renewable energy sources, are experiencing the intensity. A shareholder resolution requesting the oil major ExxonMobil to disclose the risks it faced from environmental litigation was supported by 9% of investors in May, including Norway’s largest pension company, KLP.

In the United States, cities, counties, and states are challenging Exxon and other oil companies, including Chevron and Shell, for alleged “deception” campaigns regarding climate change and the impact of their products on it.

Assuming even a portion of the US cases were effective, “you in all likelihood are discussing the biggest misdeed grant in US history — this would be effectively more than $1tn,” says Lee Wasserman, overseer of generous gathering the Rockefeller Family Asset. EarthRights International, a non-profit that is a part of several of the lawsuits, has received a donation from the fund.

He adds, “We’re very close to the moment when a number of [law] firms take that leap” and begin representing clients in cases of this kind. After that, the fossil fuel industry will face hundreds, not dozens, of cases.

Source – Ft