Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment (No 2)

In the matter of Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment (No 2), the Federal Court was tasked with determining several significant issues regarding the duty of care owed by the Minister for the Environment to certain children, the appropriate form of a declaration concerning this duty, and the costs associated with the proceedings. The applicants sought a declaration that the Minister had a duty of care to avoid causing harm to children under 18 years of age who were ordinarily resident in Australia due to emissions of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere. Additionally, the applicants sought to prevent the proceeding from continuing as a representative proceeding for children who were under 18 years of age and not ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of the commencement of the proceeding. The Minister argued against the representative nature of the proceeding and contested the scope and content of the duty of care.

The court was required to decide whether the Minister owed a duty of care to the children under 18 years of age who were ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of the commencement of the proceeding. It also needed to determine the appropriate formulation of the duty of care and whether the proceeding should continue as a representative proceeding for children who were not ordinarily resident in Australia. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the applicants' failure to fully obtain the relief claimed justified an order apportioning the applicants' costs.

The court ruled that a declaration should be made that the Minister had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury or death to persons who were under 18 years of age and ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of the commencement of the proceeding due to emissions of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. The court decided that the proceeding should not continue as a representative proceeding for children who were under 18 years of age and not ordinarily resident in Australia at the time of the commencement of the proceeding. The court also held that the Minister should pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding, considering the applicants had not fully obtained the relief they sought. This decision was grounded in the real interest of the parties in the questions to be answered by the declaration and the utility of the declaration in formalising the outcome of the proceeding.