Climate litigation trends: three significant developments you need to know about

It has been an active 12 months in the climate change litigation space, both in Australia and internationally. The political and legal landscape is rapidly evolving and the need to keep pace with these developments is presenting companies with new strategic challenges. In this update, we provide a summary of three recent key developments in climate change litigation in Australia and New Zealand. Read more

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AGAIN RECOGNISES AND ENFORCES ICSID AWARDS

The Federal Court of Australia has recognised and enforced two awards issued in investor-state arbitrations conducted under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) (ICSID case numbers ARB/13/31 and ARB/13/36). The Federal Court decision, Eiser Infrastructure Limited v Kingdom of Spain [2020] FCA 157 (Eiser), directly considers whether foreign states are immune from enforcement of an ICSID award in Australia. Read more

A CLIMATE CHANGE DUTY OF CARE: SHARMA V MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

The recent decision of Justice Bromberg in Sharma v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 found that a novel duty of care is owed by the Minister for the Environment to Australian children who might suffer potential “catastrophic harm” from the climate change implications of approving the extension to the Vickery coal mine in New South Wales.
Read more

NOT ALL’S “FAIR DEALING” IN WAR AND GREENPEACE: FEDERAL COURT CONFIRMS LIMITS OF THE “PARODY OR SATIRE” EXCEPTION TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

The Federal Court’s decision in AGL v Greenpeace1 confirms that using a corporate logo in activist or protest materials may be permissible under both copyright and trade mark law, but only where that use constitutes a “fair dealing” for the genuine purpose of “parody or satire”. Not all such uses will fall within that exception, so a fine line must be trodden to avoid infringement. Read more