Publication
Second Circuit defers to executive will on application of sovereign immunity
The Second Circuit recently held that federal common law protections of sovereign immunity did not preclude prosecution of a state-owned foreign corporation.
Australia | Publication | March 2020
Welcome to the second article in our regular series, The Perils of PFAS. This series is designed to help you navigate the issues surrounding PFAS, a contaminant which is garnering greater scrutiny as the knowledge about its impacts continues to evolve.
This article is particularly relevant to potential plaintiffs and defendants of civil liability claims relating to PFAS contamination.
As you may know, several class actions have been brought in relation to the use of a PFAS containing product, known as aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), on sites throughout Australia. AFFF is a fire suppressant that is used in fire-fighting and fire-fighting training activities.
These class actions have been brought by occupiers and owners of land surrounding sites on which AFFF has been used. The plaintiffs allege that the use of AFFF has caused PFAS to migrate into the surrounding environment, contaminating soil, groundwater and surface water. The basis of their claims include causes of action in negligence and nuisance.
In light of the above, this article explores the nature of civil liability claims relating to PFAS contamination and provides practical tips for potential plaintiffs and defendants.
PFAS contamination has been the subject of several lawsuits in Australia and around the world. The key factors which make PFAS contamination so contentious and prone to litigation include:
The most high profile cases in Australia relate to sites where AFFF has been used, including where firefighting training exercises have been undertaken, or where there has been a fire. However PFAS products have also been used in a range of industries and activities, including aluminium production, power generation, coal mining, petroleum exploration, chrome and metal plating, and in the manufacturing of electricity and communications equipment, fertilisers, healthcare technologies, textiles, building products, and paper and food packaging.2
The key sources of civil liability for persons who have carried out activities involving PFAS are the torts of nuisance and negligence.
A “nuisance” is an interference with the rights of a person or a class of persons to the enjoyment of life or property. There are two types of nuisance: private nuisance and public nuisance. A private nuisance is an interference with private property rights, whereas a public nuisance is an interference with the public rights of a class of persons. Most commonly, claims relating to PFAS contamination are brought under private nuisance.
The elements of a claim in private nuisance are:
For example, PFAS contamination may cause a private nuisance if it can be demonstrated that, as a result of the contamination, landowners have been unable to use bore water on their land, which they are legally entitled to use.
The tort of private nuisance can only apply where there has been an interference with a private property right. The tort of “negligence”, on the other hand, is of broader scope. For example, a claim in negligence may offer a remedy where the damage suffered is a personal injury or business interruption, as well as property damage.
The elements of a claim in negligence are:
For example, PFAS contamination may be the subject of a successful claim in negligence if it can be demonstrated that, as a result of the contamination, a landowner suffered loss from the diminution in the value of their property, and the polluter failed to take reasonable steps to prevent that loss.
Underscoring a claim in both nuisance and negligence is that the defendant must have had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk of loss or harm.
Although several claims have been made, in Australia we are yet to receive a Court judgment clarifying:
Nevertheless, what is clear is that the absence of certainty on these matters should not result in a “do nothing” approach.
In light of this, the following tips for potential plaintiffs and defendants may be useful:
To read the first article in this series, PFAS and major projects: Mitigating the risks for construction contracts, please click here.
See the 2016 report prepared by Property NSW titled “Review of Land Values in the Williamtown contamination investigation area”, which recommended a 15% reduction in the land values of most of the properties in the Williamtown investigation area.
For a list of industries commonly associated with PFAS contamination, please see Appendix B to the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) prepared by the Heads of EPAs Australia and New Zealand and dated January 2018. We note that this version of the PFAS NEMP is currently under review and version 2 is being prepared.
Publication
The Second Circuit recently held that federal common law protections of sovereign immunity did not preclude prosecution of a state-owned foreign corporation.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023