The Legal Light Justin Stack Once again court rules government has no duty of care for climate change For the second time, the Federal Court has ruled the government does not have a legal duty of care to protect Australians from the effects of climate change. Torres Strait Islanders fear their home islands will disappear underwater due to rising sea levels as the planet warms. Climate scientists predict many of the islands will be uninhabitable within 25 years. In 2021 the Islanders commenced a class action against the Federal government, arguing it had a duty of care to protect them from the serious effects of climate change because of inadequate emissions reduction targets. They also asked the Federal Court to recognise legally the cultural loss and harm they are experiencing as sea levels rise and swamp their traditional lands. After four years of hearings, in July 2025, Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney ruled against the Islanders. He declared they failed to establish the government had a duty of care to them, or to recognise cultural harm from climate change. In a 1,275 paragraph judgment, Justice Wigney found matters of government policy are not the subject of common law duties of care, or to be decided by courts. Lawyer Anneka Frayne, director at Stacks Law Firm, said this is the second time courts have rejected claims the government has a duty of care to Australians for the effects of climate change. "In 2021 a Federal Court judge ruled the government does have a duty of care to protect children from the perils of climate change, after eight teenagers in the so-called Sharma case argued their lives will be harmed by climate change. "Justice Mordecai Bromberg outlined in great detail the coming impact of climate change on the young generation, declaring it would be 'catastrophic' if global temperatures rose by the predicted three degrees. "But the then Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley appealed, and in 2022 the Full Bench of the Federal Court overturned the earlier ruling, finding it was not the place of courts to set government policies on climate change." Ms Frayne said the Labor government has continued the same determination not to allow a legal duty of care over climate change to interfere with its policies. In the Islanders' case, Justice Wigney did find climate change was "an existential threat to the whole of humanity", in particular to the people of low-lying islands. He said Torres Strait islanders face a "bleak future" unless urgent action is taken to slow global warming. But he accepted the Labor government's argument, that the common law of negligence and the duty of care could not set the government's climate policies. STACKS LAW FIRM Justin Stack Compensation Specialist No Win, No Fee Conditions apply 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life The Legal Light Justin Stack Once again court rules government has no duty of care for climate change For the second time , the Federal Court has ruled the government does not have a legal duty of care to protect Australians from the effects of climate change . Torres Strait Islanders fear their home islands will disappear underwater due to rising sea levels as the planet warms . Climate scientists predict many of the islands will be uninhabitable within 25 years . In 2021 the Islanders commenced a class action against the Federal government , arguing it had a duty of care to protect them from the serious effects of climate change because of inadequate emissions reduction targets . They also asked the Federal Court to recognise legally the cultural loss and harm they are experiencing as sea levels rise and swamp their traditional lands . After four years of hearings , in July 2025 , Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney ruled against the Islanders . He declared they failed to establish the government had a duty of care to them , or to recognise cultural harm from climate change . In a 1,275 paragraph judgment , Justice Wigney found matters of government policy are not the subject of common law duties of care , or to be decided by courts . Lawyer Anneka Frayne , director at Stacks Law Firm , said this is the second time courts have rejected claims the government has a duty of care to Australians for the effects of climate change . " In 2021 a Federal Court judge ruled the government does have a duty of care to protect children from the perils of climate change , after eight teenagers in the so - called Sharma case argued their lives will be harmed by climate change . " Justice Mordecai Bromberg outlined in great detail the coming impact of climate change on the young generation , declaring it would be ' catastrophic ' if global temperatures rose by the predicted three degrees . " But the then Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley appealed , and in 2022 the Full Bench of the Federal Court overturned the earlier ruling , finding it was not the place of courts to set government policies on climate change . " Ms Frayne said the Labor government has continued the same determination not to allow a legal duty of care over climate change to interfere with its policies . In the Islanders ' case , Justice Wigney did find climate change was " an existential threat to the whole of humanity " , in particular to the people of low - lying islands . He said Torres Strait islanders face a " bleak future " unless urgent action is taken to slow global warming . But he accepted the Labor government's argument , that the common law of negligence and the duty of care could not set the government's climate policies . STACKS LAW FIRM Justin Stack Compensation Specialist No Win , No Fee Conditions apply 02 6592 6592 taree.stacklaw.com.au Partners in life