This opinion discusses the Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority (2025) case . The opinion argues that it would be wrong to interpret the Darwall case as one which involved any significant development in the law of the commons or access land more generally. Instead, it argues that it is a case where the Supreme Court applied ordinary principles of statutory interpretation to find that what had long been understood as the position since the 1980s (that the public had a right to camp on Dartmoor) was indeed what the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 had conferred on the public.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill aims to speed up the planning process and associated decision-making. Part 1 of the Bill introduces changes in the context of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) that warrant attention. First, the Bill removes the legal duty to consult at the pre-application stage of the NSIP development consent process. In particular it removes the public's legal right to participate at this stage. Second, it makes changes to the judicial review process which raise questions over the balance between the swift administration of justice and access to justice. This commentary argues that combined the proposed reforms reflect a move that supports a rhetoric of ‘challenge culture’. 1 This rhetoric positions procedural and administrative law as an obstacle to infrastructure development and is something we should not ignore.

This opinion considers the decision made by the Supreme Court of Nepal in the case of Prakash Mani Sharma v The Government of Nepal which concerns the proposed construction of Nijgadh International Airport in a densely forested area of Nepal. In doing so, it considers the views of environmentalists, developers, airport authorities and the government. It also suggests what lessons can be learned from the decision, and emphasizes the importance of applying the concept of “sustainable development” to evaluating such a problem.

This opinion asks the question of whether contaminated land sites ‘can’ and ‘should’ be used to provide renewable energy in the United Kingdom (UK)? This question in turn raises many other questions and scenarios which have yet to be considered, explored and resolved, by relevant stakeholders regarding the use of such sites. Detailed assessments need to be undertaken to understand what the impact of using these sites would have on the environment, local communities, and whether the renewable energy obtained would make a significant difference in reducing the UK's reliance on fossil fuels. It may be that due to the long timescales involved, as a result of the need to monitor and evaluate such sites over time (in contrast to the speed of change that is actually required in practice to deal with the current energy crisis), that this proposal does not provide a ‘quick fix’ but is nonetheless something that the UK government should consider more fully now, as it could help with mitigating the ‘energy and environmental crisis’ over the longer term. In other parts of the world such as the United States of America (USA), contaminated land is actively being reused to provide renewable energy.

This legislative note examines the recent regulatory changes that were introduced on 6 April 2022, and which consequently affect the Companies Act 2006 and the Limited Liability Partnerships (Account and Audit) (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2008. The amendments mean that companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) that fall within the regulations’ scope must now disclose their climate change risks and opportunities. It is submitted in this work that these amendments are a step in the right direction for ‘environment social governance’ (ESG) in the private sector. Indeed, the need to report on climate change risk is likely to drive the appetite of affected businesses to develop their ESG programmes within their overall risk management frameworks. Together with this intrinsic impact, the changes are also likely to increase ESG and CSR within the markets more broadly.

Addressing global warming by reducing carbon emissions is recognised as a necessary step to try and ensure the survival of the planet. Integral to this it is essential that those who have contributed most to global warming undertake fundamental changes in the way their economies and societies operate. Among the numerous solutions proposed is a reduction in fossil fuels, especially in transport systems. This includes moving away from vehicles dependent on diesel and petrol to electric vehicles. This apparently ‘green’ solution may come at a grave environmental cost however, especially in those parts of the world already vulnerable to climate change. This is because the metals required to make electric vehicle batteries – and to store renewable energy supplies, can be found in the deep seas. Mining them presents a solution to a current need but risks future environmental disaster especially for island states adjacent to these seas. One such area under threat is the Pacific.

The appeal taken by Bayer CropScience AG in Bayer CropScience AG v European Commission 1 probes the precautionary decision-making procedure employed in the regulation of pesticides in the European Union. Scientific data has a central role in the procedure. The decision of the Court of Justice suggests that an expansive approach to the source and type of scientific data is appropriate. Such a broad approach, however, can result in uncertainty with regards to the data to be relied upon and also raises questions over how such broad parameters can be translated into a practical and applied methodology to pesticide management.

A diverse range of regulatory schemes in climate policy has produced a fragmented and crowded governance landscape. Devising pathways towards converging all of the different climate governance approaches would be a Herculean task, but it is argued here that this should not inhibit efforts to scale up regulatory initiatives in specific areas of climate governance. In this respect, it is argued that linking emissions trading schemes (ETSs) would significantly contribute to the development of creating more durable and connected climate governance arrangements. At present, the global expansion of ETSs raises risks of potential regulatory divergence, conflict, and the emergence of a disconnected patchwork of schemes. However, the expansion of trading schemes has also brought an increased interest in the feasibility of linkage between ETSs. This opinion argues that, in the absence of a comprehensive multilateral regime governing emissions trading, policymakers and scholars must instead refocus on the challenges of creating a coherent climate governance architecture from the bottom-up. It further suggests that the development and implementation of durable linkages between ETSs are critical building blocks in this quest.