Conference: Courts as an Arena of Societal Change
News
Webinar: Law in Public Interest: Collective Redress, Funding & Climate Regulation
Our Vici team organises an online seminar titled ‘Law in the Public Interest: Collective Redress, and Litigation Funding and Climate Change Regulation’ on 19 November from 15-17 hrs (CET).
The event will explore the intersections between legal frameworks and the public interest in a time of increasing concerns about climate change, corporate responsibility, and the cost barriers to pursuing collective justice. As climate change becomes a global priority, regulatory frameworks and climate litigation are holding governments and corporations accountable for their environmental impact. Collective redress and litigation funding also fulfil this role and are gaining prominence in recent years with the adoption of legislation such as the EU Representative Actions Directive and the Dutch WAMCA and with high-profile cases like the Post Office litigation in the UK.
Esteemed speakers are: Eva van der Zee (University of Hamburg, Germany) on Behavioural Insights on Climate Change Law; Koen Rutten (Finch, Netherlands) on Is Funding Collective Litigation still Affordable? and Flora Page (23ES, United Kingdom) on What the Bates v Post Office Litigation reveals about the Pros and Cons of Litigation Funding. Introduction and moderation by Adrian Cordina and Xandra Kramer
Register before 19 November for free here.
Published: July 12, 2022
Carlota Ucín has participated in the Conference: ‘Courts as an Arena for Societal Change’ that took place on the 8 and 9 July 2022, at Leiden Law School. In her presentation, she developed some ideas from her recent book: Inequality on trials. The defence of social rights through the judicial process (in Spanish). In particular, she focused on the importance of introducing some reforms within the judicial process to legitimate the role of courts in public interest litigation. She presented the idea of the ‘deliberative legitimacy of courts’ that implies the possibility of opening up the dialogue between interested and affected groups through public hearings as well as enforcing the duty of justification of the judges by applying a scheme of argumentation that includes a more sophisticated proportionality test.