Date of judgement: 27 May 2021
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Citation(s): [2021] FCA 560
Short summary
The Australian Federal Court found that the Federal Environment Minister has a novel duty of care to prevent harm to young people as a result of climate change. Despite this finding, the Court did not issue an injunction to prevent the Australian government from extending a coal mine.
Summary by: Erin Gallagher
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
This decision of the Federal Court bears significant weight in the Commonwealth of Australia.
Key facts
The applicants were eight Australian school children, and a catholic nun who acted as their representative. They brought the claim on behalf of themselves but also other children residing in Australia.
The applicants made two claims against the Environment Minister. Firstly, they sought a declaration that a duty of care is owed by the Minister under the law of negligence and secondly, they argued that the Minister would be failing to exercise this duty of care if she approved a pending application from the Vickery coal mine to extract an additional 33 million tonnes of coal from a mine that had been set up and operated by Whitehaven, Vickery’s parent company. They therefore sought an injunction to restrain an apprehended breach of that duty.
The Minister is responsible for administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and one of its purposes is providing for protection of the environment. Under the Act, the extension of the Vickery Coal mine would be prohibited unless the Minister approves the project under s130 and 133 of the Act.
If approved, the increased extraction would result in an estimated 100 million tonnes of additional CO2 emissions. The applicants argued that children were particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and more likely to live through any future impacts caused by such emissions.
The Applicants provided evidence from the IPCC and other expert climate scientists to demonstrate CO2 emissions will contribute to the increasing global temperature, and that there are devastating impacts resulting from this temperature increase. The Minister did not dispute this evidence.
The applicants claimed that the additional 100 million tonnes of CO2 will contribute to the global increase in temperature. The Minister argued that the additional CO2 would be within the Paris Agreement’s budget.
The Minister also argued that there is no such duty of care, and that recognition of one would impair her statutory task under the EPBC Act. She also denied that any injury to the Children resulting from approval of the project is reasonably foreseeable. She further argued that if such a duty of care were recognised, there is no reasonable apprehension that the duty will be breached and thus no grounds to grant an injunction thus the proceedings should be dismissed.
Continued on the next page…