Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment

In the case of Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Minister owed a duty of care to Australian children concerning the extraction of coal from a coal mine. The plaintiff, Sharma, sought a declaration that the Minister had a duty of care and an injunction to prevent its breach. The court was required to decide if the Minister owed a duty of care to Australian children when approving the coal extraction under sections 130 and 133 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the Minister from breaching the recognised duty of care.

The court adopted the salient features approach to ascertain whether a novel duty of care existed. It considered factors such as reasonable foreseeability, the Minister’s control, the children's vulnerability, and whether a recognised relationship existed between the Minister and the children. The court found that the Minister had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury to the children when deciding to approve or not approve the coal extraction. However, the court held that the imposition of a duty of care in this context would be incoherent with the statutory discretion provided to the Minister under sections 130 and 133 of the EPBC Act. The court also noted that the potential liability was indeterminate and that other policy considerations tended against recognising a duty of care. Consequently, the court recognised a duty of care but limited it to the avoidance of personal injury to the children.

Regarding the injunction, the court determined that a reasonable apprehension of a breach of the duty of care had not been established. The court concluded that the extent of the restraint justified by the injunction was not warranted. Therefore, the application for an injunction was dismissed. The court found that the Minister’s duty of care, as recognised, did not necessitate an injunction to prevent the coal extraction, as the only effective decision the Minister could make under the injunction would be to not approve the extension project.