Why we research amici curiae: High Court ruling in climate case
Photo by Photoholgic on Unsplash.
The High Court of Australia has handed down its judgment in MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc, the first climate change case to reach Australia’s highest court.
The Court upheld the challenge to the proposed Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion, finding that the NSW Independent Planning Commission had failed to properly consider the climate impacts of the mine’s downstream emissions.
While a significant win for community litigants, the decision is limited in what it resolved, especially about the relevance of international law in Australian climate jurisprudence and views about climate responsibility.
Moreover, the Court did not engage with the lived experience of climate harms, a feature we do expect to see in a forthcoming judgment concerning tort claims brought by Torres Strait Islanders.
The coal mine case highlights an important and increasingly relevant feature of environmental litigation: the role of amici curiae which means "friends of the court".
An amicus curiae is a non-party participant permitted by the court to offer specialised legal arguments or context to assist the judges in their decision-making.
In cases limited by strict statutory rules, these independent interventions can provide the vital legal pathway for broader human rights and environmental realities to be heard.
This dynamic is a central focus of research by Associate Professor Cristy Clark, Associate Professor Brad Jessup and Dr Josh Gibson at the Climate Justice Lab, who are all academic members of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law.
Working across law, environment, society and policy, their research examines the role and motivations of amici curiae in Australian superior courts, investigating who participates in these cases and how their interventions shape environmental law.
Research out of the Climate Justice Lab is also examining how this type of environmental litigation will soon intersect with everyday human rights.
They are exploring whether public housing tenants facing extreme heat could become Australia's next climate litigants.
Today’s landmark judgment provides a timely example of how communities can hold decision-makers accountable, why these questions matter and why we do this research.