This case is an example of where the court has considered expanded notions of environmental justice; specifically the human impact that toxic air pollution can have and the liability that may result from it. A six year old child, as the plaintiff, had allegedly been exposed to unhealthy levels of a number of toxic elements including arsenic, cadmium, lead. Her case argued that she had suffered substantial harm to her health resultant from this exposure, including developmental harm, brain and nerve damage. Expert evidence was provided that showed how the atmospheric dispersion of toxic elements from the mine may have been affecting children in the area, including the plaintiff. It also became clear part way through the trial that the child had suffered a premature birth which provided a possible explanation for the harm suffered.

Ultimately, the court did not consider whether the pollution from the mine was the cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. The case was dismissed on the grounds of not sufficiently addressing how the child was exposed to the toxic elements. The evidence tendered as to the general dispersion of the pollution on children in the area was not sufficient. Finally, the case was dismissed for failing to meet notice of claim requirements.

(Summary provided by Friedrich Kuepper from the Queensland University of Technology)