New South Wales

Australia

Queensland

South Australia

Tasmania

Australian Capital Territory

Victoria

Western Australia

Northern Territory

The Climate Litigation Database

Find climate change litigation data and indicators for {text}.

{text} litigation

Sabin Center for Climate Change Law provides Climate Litigation Database, a comprehensive database of US and Global climate change caselaw

Quickly and easily search through the complete text of thousands of climate change law and policy documents from every country.

Search the Climate Litigation Database

Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed a suit against Fiducian Investment Management Services Limited (FIMSL) on October 2, 2025, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, alleging that FIMSL breached its duties by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct about its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) fund. ASIC claims that while the Product Disclosure Statement about the Diversified Social Aspirations Fund (DSAF) stated with details how the DSAF would only make investments in companies that were considered to be positive for society and the environment, FIMSL invested in a number of coal mining and petroleum related businesses. ASIC seeks, under the ASIC Act, that FIMSL pay a pecuniary penalty or penalties for its violations and disclose to the public its wrongdoings. 

This is the fourth greenwashing civil penalty action taken by ASIC, and the first against a responsible entity (RE) for alleged failures in governance and compliance with RE duties.

The case was brought by the Commissioner of Police under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) §25, seeking an order from the court to prohibit two public assemblies notified to the Commissioner. Justice Fagan ordered the assemblies to be prohibited on November 7, 2024. 

Originally, two public assemblies were notified to the police by Rising Tide, a group of individuals focused on defending the climate. The first assembly was to take place at Horseshoe Beach, Newcastle, and adjoining parkland, intended to continue for approximately eight days with an expected attendance of 10,000 people. This assembly was agreed to be shortened to four days after the second day of hearing. The second assembly was to take place on the waters of Newcastle Harbour off Horseshoe Beach, over three days that overlap with the first protest, with an expected attendance of 1,000 people. Both assemblies were purposed to "protest against [the Australian] governments’ continuing approval of new coal projects, and to call for an urgent transition away from coal exports, funded by a tax on the profits of those exports."

Justice Fagan, in prohibiting both assemblies, noted the unusually long duration and potential safety concerns. He pointed out that protests on shipping channels raise safety issues for both protesters and police, an issue that would not arise in a conventional assembly or street march. Justice Fagan further noted that an assembly on the water can preserve police powers to keep the port open by arresting any protesters who impede safe navigation. Because police cannot arrest protesters protected under the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) §24, the court found that allowing the protest in water would practically be allowing the protestors "to blockade the harbour" without the risk of arrests under the Marine Safety Act 1988 (NSW) even after infringing the law. The court, in reaching the decision, also considered Rising Tide's civil disobedience in a previous protest, and a public statement made by that protest's organizer that "[e]ffective protest means pushing the boundaries and we needed to disrupt the Newcastle coal port as long as we possibly could. We were scheduled to finish our 30 hour blockade but the cops didn’t know we were going to keep it going longer than we had planned for." Overall, based on the potential inconvenience to the public based on duration and location, safety concerns, and previous interaction between the parties, the court found that the assemblies should be prohibited.

This case was brought by the South East Forest Rescue (SEFR) against Forestry Corporation of New South Wales (FCNSW) on January 15, 2024. SEFR sought an order restraining FCNSW from conducting any forestry operation unless “broad area habitat searches” are conducted in a manner that includes particular searches for “nest, roost or den trees.” The conditions sought by the SEFR aimed to protect the endangered species of Petauroides volans (the Southern Greater Glider) and the vulnerable species of Petaurus australis (the Yellow-bellied Glider) and Petaurus norfolcensis (the Squirrel Glider). FCNSW argued that the SEFR does not have common law standing to bring civil enforcement proceedings, in seeking to enforce compliance with the requirements of an integrated forestry operation approval under Part 5B of the Forestry Act.

On February 7, 2024, Justice Pritchard of the New South Wales Land and Environment Court concluded that the SEFR did not have standing. The court explained that it was undisputed that the SEFR sought to enforce compliance with the requirements of the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval, which makes the case a civil enforcement proceeding. Based on precedents, the purpose of the Forestry Act, the context and language of §§ 69SB and 69ZA, and the principle of legality, the trial court held that a private person or entity can have standing at common law to bring proceedings to enforce compliance with an integrated forestry operations approval, notwithstanding the allegedly conflicting language of § 69ZA, if the person or entity has a "special interest" in the subject matter of the proceedings. Yet, the Court found no standing of the SEFR because: it sought relief in relation to operations outside its usual geographical area of concern; it was deemed to be formed for the basis of ending native logging, not the protection of gliders; the evidence was unclear as to the nature, activities, knowledge and experience of its members in their pursuit of SEFR’s objects; and its concern for gliders was deemed only to have been recently manifested.

On May 16, 2024, the Judges of Appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal—Justice Griffiths, joined by Justices Adamson and Basten—overturned the decision of Justice Pritchard. In interpreting the language of §§ 69SB and 69ZA of the Forestry Act and §§ 13.14 and 13.14A of the Biodiversity Conservation Act, the court found that the provisions do not preclude private persons or entities from bringing civil enforcement proceedings in relation to integrated forestry operations. The court explained that  a clearer language manifesting the legislature's intent is necessary to oust common law standing, which will abrogate or curtail fundamental rights. The court further found that a special interest to demonstrate common law standing in the absence of some private right or special damage is available in this case. Explaining that whether particular steps or activities are sufficient to demonstrate a special interest are fact and context specific, the court found the SEFR as having a special interest based on its long history of taking active steps and concrete action in relation to its beliefs and concerns, namely a deep concern regarding logging and its effects on the welfare of forest-dependent threatened species, including the Greater Glider.

On April 9, 2025, Justice Gageler, joined by justices Edelman, Steward, Jagot, and Beech-Jones, of the High Court of Australia, upheld the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeals. The court held that persons or entities with a special interest can enforce duties and obligations imposed by an integrated forestry operations approval granted under Part 5B of the Forestry Act, notwithstanding the individual not being a government entity.

Geography

New South Wales

Recent cases