Queensland

South Australia

Tasmania

Australian Capital Territory

Victoria

New South Wales

Western Australia

Northern Territory

Australia

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

Brad Homewood, a climate activist was found guilty and fined $5,000 in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria by Magistrate Andrew Halse, after protesting for hours at the Exxon Mobil’s refuelling facility.  

Homewood, in relation to him blocking the exit gate of Exxon Mobil's facility in Spotswood and protesting, was charged with four offences. As a defense, Homewood argued that the protest was necessary, because there was a sudden or extraordinary emergency of the climate crisis under Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria) §322R. §322R requires that (i) Homewood reasonably believed that circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency exist; (ii) Homewood reasonably believed that the protest was the only reasonable way to deal with the emergency; and (iii) the protest is a reasonable response to the emergency of the climate crisis. To support his case, Homewood submitted expert reports on the severity of global heating and the history of civil disobedience being used to affect political change. However, Magistrate Halse found the reports inadmissible and ruled in favor of the prosecutor. 

According to a fundraiser launched by Homewood, Homewood is planning to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

On May 23, 2025, Queensland Conservation Council Inc's (QCC) objection to Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (BBC) Environmental Authority Amendment Application for expansion of the Lake Vermont mine in central Queensland was referred to the Land Court of Queensland (Court) for a Mining Objection Hearing (MOH). Bowen Basin Coal Pty Ltd (the Proponent) submitted an application to amend its environmental authority (EA), A-EA-AMD-100781430 (the Application), to permit a new mining lease (MLA700080) and expand its operations in its existing leases, ML70528, ML70331, and ML70477. The current EA for the Lake Vermont Project (EPML00659513) limits coal extraction to 12 million tons per annum (Mtpa) of ROM coal. Lake Vermont primarily produces hard coking (metallurgical) coal and PCI coal for export markets. According to Project documentation, Lake Vermont Mine was expected to gradually decline from 2023, with further decreases to approximately 4 Mtpa and less from 2028 until the end of the mine life, which is currently scheduled for 2061. In 2019, information indicated that the Lake Vermont Mine contributed 8.9 million tons to the export market and was ranked as the ninth-largest supplier to the export coal market. The Application for the Lake Vermont Meadowbrook Project appears to be a proposed extension to the currently operating Lake Vermont Coal Mine. The Application proposes to extend the life of the mine by 20 years, with construction commencing in January 2025, and operational by December 2028 (based on the EIS, it is estimated that the project life span will be approximately 53 years). 

The Project proposes to provide additional product coal to maintain production levels at approximately 9 Mtpa from 2028 through to 2048. Following the completion of the underground extension project in 2048, a new open-cut pit is proposed to supplement existing operations, although production levels are expected to continue declining until the project's completion in 2055. Final mining completion at the existing Lake Vermont Mine is still expected to occur in 2061. The EIS indicates that approximately 108.6 Mt of underground ROM coal plus 13.3 Mt of open-cut ROM coal is estimated to be mined over the life of the project, producing approximately 122 Mt of total ROM coal. Based on the production estimates provided in the EIS, the project’s total lifetime carbon emissions would be 348 million tonnes CO2e. If approved, Lake Vermont could become the sixth-largest coal mine in QLD by 2028.

The Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) objects to the Lake Vermont mine expansion on environmental, human rights, and sustainability grounds. It argues that the project fails to meet the objectives of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), which requires developments to enhance quality of life while safeguarding ecological processes. According to QCC, the mine expansion would instead cause long-term environmental harm.

QCC further contends that the project would unreasonably limit rights protected under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), including the rights to equality, life, property, privacy, family, and the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Granting approval in these circumstances would be incompatible with the Act.

The objections also highlight conflicts with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including intergenerational equity, the precautionary principle, biodiversity conservation, and recognition of the global climate impacts of coal mining. QCC stresses that the project would undermine Australia’s commitments under international agreements such as the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Finally, it argues that the proponent has not adequately addressed information requests, that the expansion is contrary to the public interest, and that the economic benefits are outweighed by the full social and environmental costs.


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 Raelene Cooper, a traditional custodian residing in Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula), in the Federal Court of Australia on May 22, 2025. Plaintiff alleged that the Minister for the Environment and Water breached its duty by causing an unreasonable delay in determining her application. When the case was filed, almost three and a half years had passed since Ms. Cooper, along with another traditional custodian, Josie Alec, had applied for a declaration pursuant to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) (hereinafter the "Act") §10. In the application, that was filed on February 2, 2022, Ms. Cooper and Ms. Alec sought protection of Murujuga from injury and desecration, arising from natural gas extraction by Woodside Energy Group Ltd, ammonia and hydrogen production by Yara Australia Pty Ltd and related companies, and a proposed urea plant development by Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd.

Justice Stewart, on August 25, 2025, found that there was an unreasonable delay and granted the applicant the liberty to apply for further relief in the event that the ministry has not determined by September 12, 2025, the application made by Ms. Cooper and Ms. Alec. In reaching the conclusion, the court explained that while there is no express provision specifying a certain time limit in deciding on an application under §10, the section is subject to an implied condition of reasonable time. The court explained that while the applicant originally carries the burden of proof to show a delay that calls for explanation, once this is established, the minister carries the burden to make the explanation. The justice stated that "[t]he point is that the mere length of time to make the decision calls for an explanation of why it has taken so long," and that even "[t]he fact of regular and timely steps being taken along the way – which is not this case . . . – is not an explanation of why so much time was taken." Based on the facts, the court concluded that there was an unreasonable delay with no adequate explanation.

Justice Stewart noted that the decision-making process is moving forward purposefully due to the pressure of this proceeding, and that a rigid court-ordered deadline might interfere with proper administrative decision-making if unforeseen issues arise. Therefore, following the approach in AFX17 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 807, the applicant is given liberty to apply for further orders if the decision is not made soon.

Geography

Australia

Recent cases