Login
Legal profession to see influx of climate-related litigation
The profession is seeing a spate of climate-related litigation matters, creating a real opportunity for lawyers in the space, according to a legal academic.
Abhranil Hazra
Speaking on a recent episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, UTS Law teaching academic Dr Costa Avgoustinos shared why lawyers and judges alike shouldn’t be afraid to get involved in climate-related matters.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
“In Australia, we’ve got the most climate litigation cases in the world behind the United States. So, it’s been increasing pretty consistently for about 20 years, in the last 10 years especially,” said Dr Avgoustinos.
According to Dr Avgoustinos, the effects of climate change are set to have lasting consequences for the Australian Constitution — something he urged lawyers not to shy away from in being vocal about.
As an example, Dr Avgoustinos cited an overturned case filed by climate activist Anjali Sharma against the then-minister for environment where she cited the principles of duty of care and principles of negligence in the Constitution.
“A lot of people around the world have been looking at their constitution trying to find things either expressed or implied in there, that can help keep their governments to account and find new avenues for solutions in terms of climate change,” Dr Avgoustinos said.
He explained that a common reason why judges often abstain from court cases regarding climate change, such as the issue of approving mines, is that they’re deemed “too political”.
“Sometimes judges push back a bit because of this idea of climate change is too political, it’s too politically charged, there is a lot of economics factors nodded up with it … A lot of judges would feel a lot more comfortable deferring to the legislative and executive branch, it is not appropriate for the court,” he said.
In fact, Dr Avgoustinos argued courts are well placed to deal with climate change issues better than legislative and executive branches of government.
“Courts think long term; they don’t think short term in terms of electoral cycles, which isn’t important when it’s talking about climate exchange … The court is much further removed from those interests (fossil fuel companies), the court is the place of reason, and they look at the facts as they are,” he said.
Going forward, Dr Avgoustinos believes that it’s the judiciary’s duty to act on climate change as it affects all aspects of life and society.
“Climate change is not just a threat to our kids, to farmers, to the Great Barrier Reef, to sea turtles, to all of these things … if we look at it as a threat to our constitutional system then that gives judges a bit more of a, not even an imperative, but an obligation.”
