As has been recently reported, a senior manager who has alleged he was unfairly dismissed on the basis of his views on climate change can take his employer to a tribunal, an employment appeal judge has ruled.
Tim Nicholson, head of sustainability at residential landlord group Grainger, said his environmental beliefs were the reason behind a decision to make him redundant in 2008, because his views had strained relations with senior staff.
Nicholson asserted his views on climate change amounted to a philosophical belief and should be protected.
In March, Nicholson was given permission to make his claim under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003, which covers "any religion, religious belief, or philosophical belief".
However, Grainger appealed against this decision, saying Nicholson's views were political.
Last week, Nicholson was again given permission to pursue the claim. His solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "Essentially what the judgment says is that a belief in man-made climate change and the alleged resulting moral imperative is capable of being a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by the 2003 religion or belief regulations."
The press are understandably focusing on the ostensible fact that someone can now issue proceedings on the back of cliamate change.
However, as an outsider looking in at a brief snapshot of the litigation, there is some needle which is fueling the litigation.
He also accused the chief executive, Rupert Dickinson, of showing "contempt" for his concerns.
The case is quite possibley less about new laws and climate change but more about the sad breakdown in a relationship between 2 people.