How can health evidence strengthen climate litigation – and what stops it being used more widely in court? These questions were at the heart of a recent UCL-hosted webinar bringing together experts in law, global health and climate science from across the UK.
Co-chaired by Associate Professor Isra Black (UCL Laws) and Professor Audrey Prost (UCL Institute for Global Health), the event showcased new interdisciplinary research examining how health evidence is used in climate change litigation across different jurisdictions. Drawing on a global review of cases and interviews with climate litigation lawyers, Dr Kenta Suda (LSE Law School) revealed that health evidence is far from straightforward to deploy. Its use is shaped not only by scientific relevance, but by jurisdictional rules, litigation costs, evidentiary standards and lawyers’ long-term strategic goals.
The discussion highlighted why authoritative sources such as WHO and IPCC reports are often favoured over complex expert testimony, and why cases involving vulnerable groups – such as children or older people – can be particularly powerful, yet procedurally challenging.
Commenting on the rapidly evolving science, Dr Rupert Stuart-Smith (University of Oxford) outlined how advances in climate and health attribution are making it increasingly possible to link greenhouse gas emissions to specific health harms. Dr Sonam Gordon (King’s College London) reflected on the realities faced by courts, using recent UK case law to illustrate the legal and institutional limits judges operate within.
The webinar underscored a clear message: meaningful collaboration between health researchers and legal practitioners is essential if health evidence is to play a stronger role in climate accountability.
Watch the full webinar recording to explore how law and health can work together to advance climate justice.
