Chris Kidd Head of Shipbuilding and Offshore Construction, Joint Head of Energy & Infrastructure, Partner
Climate change litigation update: Ewan McGaughey et al v Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited
A claim has been brought against the directors of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the “USS”), the largest private pension scheme in the UK, for inaction around climate change commitments.
On 29 October 2021, a group of academic staff issued proceedings in the High Court of Justice against the USS and its directors for, amongst other claims, failing to create a credible disinvestment plan for its fossil fuel investments.
The issuing of proceedings followed the USS’ announcement in May 2021 that, in light of its existing view of climate change as a financial risk to the returns generated by its assets, its ambition was to be carbon net zero by 2050, if not before, to align with the Paris Agreement.
In order to achieve their carbon net zero ambition, the USS released a set of “likely actions”, including:
- Reviewing and possibly changing the benchmarks used to guide and measure performance to ensure that these take carbon (and other ESG factors) into account.
- Ensuring that assets are resilient in the face of a move to a net zero world.
- Developing a portfolio of low carbon investments such as wind, solar and other sources of renewable energy.
- Divesting over time from high carbon sectors which are at financial risk from the transition.
The claimants issued proceedings alleging that the USS continues to invest directly and indirectly in fossil fuel emitting companies, including Royal Dutch Shell and Glencore, without any adequate plan for disinvestment. The claimants argue that such inaction constitutes a breach of the directors’ duties pursuant to sections 171 and 172 Companies Act 2006 to act within their powers, including making investments that avoid significant risk of financial detriment to the USS, and to promote the success of the company having regard to the USS’s long term interests.
Furthermore, the claimants allege that the directors failed to take into account the terms and consequences of the Paris Agreement.
Where an alleged wrong has been committed against a company, whether by a director or a third party, the proper claimant is the company itself. The ability of the company to decide whether to take any actions or not generally vests in the board of directors. However, where the wrong has been committed by the directors, as alleged in the present case, the members of the company can apply to the High Court for permission to bring a claim in their own name on behalf of the company, known as a derivative claim.
This derivative claim is now pending a decision on permission from the High Court to proceed.
The claims brought by the members of the USS follows the growing trend in climate change litigation to hold governments and corporates accountable for climate change inaction.
We previously reported on the landmark decision handed down by the District Court of The Hague on 26 May 2021 in the matter of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC (“RDS”), where RDS’s plan for lowering emissions was described as “intangible, undefined and non-binding”, breaching the duty of care owed by RDS to Dutch residents.
The Hague Court decision has paved the way for similar claims in Europe. In Germany, in Saul Luciano Lliuya vs RWE, the claimants are seeking to extend the duty of care principles. A Peruvian farmer and mountain guide brought a civil action in Germany against RWE, one of Germany’s largest energy producers, demanding they be held liable for climate damages from emissions and pay towards the expenses for appropriate safety measures to protect his property in Peru even though RWE had no coal power plants on the ground in Peru or the rest of South America.
Whatever the outcome, the claims brought against the USS should serve as a timely reminder to all corporates, fund managers and fiduciaries, whether in the energy sector or not, that there is an increasing momentum by activists, shareholders and others to hold them accountable for climate change.
We are closely monitoring and will report on developments as they arise.
For further information please listen to our podcast on global trends in climate change litigation, the legal and practical significance of these trends and the impact on oil and gas companies as well as those in the renewables sector.
If you have any questions about the content in this article or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Related news & insights
News / UAE Ministerial Directive Gives the Green Light towards Allowing Enforcement of English Court Judgments onshore the UAE
21-09-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure
On 13 September 2022, the UAE Ministry of Justice (MOJ) issued a landmark directive to the President of the Dubai Courts, referring to a recent English Court judgment in Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri (2020) EWHC 75 (QB) which enforced a UAE Court judgment, and urging the Dubai Courts to take requisite steps to follow the principle of reciprocity when it comes to enforcing English Court judgments in the UAE.
News / Climate change litigation update: Derivative claim dismissed
06-07-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure
McGaughey & Anor v Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd & Anor  EWHC 1233 (Ch) On 24 May 2022, the High Court refused a claim brought against the directors of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (the “USS”), the largest private pension scheme in the UK, for inaction around climate change commitments.
News / Refund guarantees – avoiding drafting pitfalls
12-05-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure
Refund guarantees are often described as the cornerstones to shipbuilding projects and the buyer’s main security. Although they do not strictly form part of the shipbuilding contract, a shipbuilding project is unlikely to go ahead at all without one. It is therefore important to understand the different types of guarantee instruments, and the impact each has in practice on the guarantor’s obligations to pay and the buyer’s entitlement to recovery. A well-drafted guarantee provides certainty to the parties and strikes a balance between their respective entitlements and obligations.
News / You will be estopped if you cross the line
04-04-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure
Estoppel is a useful tool in litigation, which is usually used to bind one party to a statement or a promise that it has previously expressed causing another to accept or adopt it for the purpose of their legal relations. The Court’s recent ruling in Geoquip Marine Operations AG v (1) Tower Resources Cameroon SA (2) Tower Resources PLC addresses estoppel by convention and recognises the requirement for the common assumption created between the parties to be clear and unequivocal. In this article, we focus on the specifics of the Court decision.
News / Court of Appeal overturns second Unaoil bribery conviction
29-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure
On 24 March 2022, the Court of Appeal overturned the conviction of a second man, Paul Bond, prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in relation to alleged wrongdoing by Unaoil.
News / The Court grapples with impact of Covid-19 on European rugby
08-03-2022 / Energy & Infrastructure
As we approach the second anniversary of Covid-19 being declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020, a number of judgments are coming out of the English Courts which are providing useful guidance on how the English Courts are treating claims concerning Covid-19, especially in a force majeure context.