Liz Hicks

The recent Federal Court decision of Pabai v Commonwealth (No 2) [2025] FCA 796 considered whether the Commonwealth owed two duties of care to the Torres Strait Islander people with respect to particular harms connected with climate change. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims. The decision is relevant on a number of fronts, including its findings regarding causation and that the cultural loss and harm experienced by the plaintiffs — fulfilment of Ailan Kastom — was not a legally recognisable ‘head of damage’ that can be compensated. However, in this post I focus on a particular feature of the Court’s analysis: the finding that the Commonwealth owed neither duty of care because decisions connected with the two argued duties involved matters of ‘core policy’.

Ellen Rock

In May of this year, Bromberg J in the Federal Court handed down a key decision in climate change litigation which has made waves both within Australia and internationally. Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 was a negligence claim commenced in connection with an application to expand …