Search & fact-check with cited sources for What are the key developments in climate accountability litigation as of late July 2026, including TotalEnergies' appeal of a French court order requiring it to align its business with climate goals by accounting for Scope 3 emissions un

The appeal (27 July 2026): TotalEnergies' Board of Directors voted to appeal the judgment . The company's core legal arguments are:

• The Duty of Vigilance Law covers risks from a company's own activities, its subsidiaries, and its suppliers — but not the activities of its customers. TotalEnergies argues it cannot control whether a motorist chooses a petrol car or an electric vehicle .
• The European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) likewise does not include customers' activities within its scope, which TotalEnergies says supports its interpretation .
• The company considers that the law was never intended to reach Scope 3 (Category 11) emissions and that doing so violates legal certainty and freedom to conduct business .

Financial context: Scope 3 emissions account for the vast majority of TotalEnergies' carbon footprint. The company has not publicly stated that the ruling will force specific operational changes, and the original court stopped short of ordering a halt to any projects, which TotalEnergies noted with satisfaction . The appeal is now before the Paris Court of Appeal.

Torres Strait Islands Appeal — Australia

The original ruling (15 July 2025): In Pabai v Commonwealth (No 2) FCA 796, Justice Wigney dismissed the claim brought by elders Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai against the Australian government . The judge accepted the scientific evidence that climate change is damaging the Torres Strait and threatening Ailan Kastom (island custom), but held that the government owes no duty of care in negligence for decisions on emission targets and climate policy, as those are matters of "core government policy" beyond judicial oversight .

The appeal hearing (late July 2026): A four-day appeal hearing commenced in Melbourne before the Full Federal Court, presided over by Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, Justice Craig Colvin, and Justice Nicholas Owens . The appellants argue that the trial judge erred in finding that negligence law cannot compensate for loss caused by government climate policy decisions .

Key legal question: Can a court find that the Commonwealth owes a duty of care to protect Indigenous communities from foreseeable climate harm, and can it award compensation for loss of culture and way of life? The Full Court reserved its decision; a judgment is expected at a later date .

Significance

The TotalEnergies and Torres Strait cases represent two frontier questions in climate accountability: whether private corporations must account for their full value-chain emissions under human rights due diligence frameworks, and whether governments can be held liable in negligence for inadequate climate policy. Neither appeal has been decided yet, and both are being closely watched for their potential to reshape climate litigation globally.