At issue: Whether ANZ Bank breached the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises by failing to disclose emissions arising from its investments, failing to align its portfolio with the goals of the Paris Agreement, and failing to publish climate scenario analysis relating to all ANZ investments.
At issue: Whether Glencore, in its representations about decarbonisation plans and engagement with Traditional Owners, is engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Corporations Act and/or Australian Consumer Law. Further, whether advertising material containing those representations breaches the Australian Advertising Codes.
At issue: Whether, in the course of preparing its environment plan for regulatory approval, Santos should have consulted with the applicant and his community; Whether the applicant and his community are considered “relevant persons” for consultation under the relevant regulations
At issue: Whether AGL's Demerger Booklet provided adequate disclosure for shareholders to make a fairly informed decision in exercising their vote on whether or not to support the demerger.
At issue: Whether the Australian government owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect Torres Strait Islanders, their traditional way of life and the marine environment in and around the Torres Strait Islands from climate change impacts. Further, whether the Australian government has breached the alleged duty by failing to implement measures to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
At issue: Whether NSW Government Ministers are required to properly consider climate change when drawing up water sharing plans and whether this requirement was met in relation to the Border Rivers Water Sharing Plan.
At issue: Whether the EPA complied with the Climate Change Act when issuing a new license for coal-burning power stations that failed to lower the limits of GHG emissions.
At issue: Whether an oil and gas company's representations that natural gas is a clean fuel and that the company has a credible net zero emissions plan were misleading.
At issue: Whether the state EPA's allowing expanded natural gas sourcing violated the state Environmental Protection Act due to environmental and climate impacts
At issue: Whether plaintiff could have development application reconsidered and approved if it accounted for climate considerations such as flooding as a result of sea level rise.