From Abc · · 2m
3M outlines defence in $2 billion PFAS lawsuit
The US chemical giant has detailed its planned defence to Australia's largest-ever government lawsuit over contaminated Defence Force bases.
In brief
The US chemical giant has detailed its planned defence to Australia's largest-ever government lawsuit over contaminated Defence Force bases. 3M has outlined its defence strategy against Australia's two billion dollar lawsuit alleging the company withheld evidence that its firefighting foam contaminated 28 Defence…
Australia sues 3M for PFAS contamination
The Australian government is suing US chemical giant 3M for two billion dollars over per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination at 28 Defence Force bases across the nation.
The core allegation
The Commonwealth alleges 3M continued making and selling aqueous film-forming foam until 2003 despite knowing since 1979 that PFAS chemicals were toxic to humans and the environment.
Evidence cited by the Crown
The federal government's lawyers cite 310 internal company documents alleging 3M falsely assured the product was safe despite studies proving PFAS variants were toxic to animals, could cause birth defects and harmed the environment.
3M's three-part defence strategy
3M's counsel Phillip Solomon KC told the Federal Court the defence would contest three claims: public nuisance, a Victorian Environment Protection Authority claim, and a misleading and deceptive conduct claim.
Challenging the public nuisance claim
3M will argue the public nuisance claim is not available, contending the company did not have the means to abate the nuisance or responsibility for special loss associated with it.
“We will plead and ultimately contend that it doesn't contend a nuisance claim.”
Dispute over representative bases
The Commonwealth proposed 3M plead to six representative bases: Wagga, Tindal, Townsville, Oakey, Edinburgh and East Sale. 3M's defence seeks to focus on just one base instead.
Liability and toxicity questions
3M raised questions about liability for remediation costs already incurred by the Commonwealth and challenged the legal definition of the term potentially toxic used in the Crown's case.
“When the Commonwealth cleans up bases and sues us and seeks that sum of money, there are going to be questions about what, if any of that we would be liable for.”
Breakdown of the two billion dollar claim
The Commonwealth seeks two billion dollars covering two hundred fourteen million for investigations and remediation, and three hundred sixty seven million in settlements from five class actions against the government.
Next court date set
3M must file its defence by December 11. Another case management hearing has been scheduled for December 1 in the Federal Court.
The key point
3M has outlined its defence strategy against Australia's two billion dollar lawsuit alleging the company withheld evidence that its firefighting foam contaminated 28 Defence Force bases.



/file/attachments/2999/13950161_903283.jpg)
/file/attachments/2999/11265199_691392.jpg)
