Search Climate Insights Directory

ClientEarth brought a derivative action against Shell's Board of Directors in the High Court of England and Wales, arguing that the company's Energy Transition Strategy was inadequate and breached sections 172 and 174 of the Companies Act 2006. The claim alleged failures in setting Scope 3 targets, over-reliance on carbon capture and nature-based solutions, and non-compliance with a Dutch court order. Despite support from institutional investors managing over half a trillion USD in assets, the High Court refused permission to continue the claim, citing a lack of formal expert evidence and the wide discretion afforded to directors in management decisions. The Court of Appeal subsequently refused permission to appeal this decision.

The document analyzes the case of Meepo v Kotze, focusing on the interpretation of section 5(4)(c) of the MPRDA. The court ruled that a prospecting rights holder must engage in a consultation process with the landowner after a prospecting right has been granted but before operations begin, which involves more than providing notice and requires an attempt to obtain the landowner's consent for entry. Additionally, the court established a general principle of interpretation for the MPRDA: where uncertainty exists, the court should prefer the construction that achieves the most rational balance between the rights of the mineral rights holder and the landowner, both of which are protected under the Bill of Rights.