The Australian Federal Court Tuesday overturned a ruling that found that Australia’s environment ministry has a duty to protect young people from the effects of climate change when considering fossil fuel projects.

That previous ruling, decided in May of 2021, resulted from a lawsuit filed by eight school students and a nun. The litigants sought an injunction to prevent the country’s Environment Minister Sussan Ley from granting an extension to a coal mine in the Australian state of New South Wales. While the judge dismissed the claim for the injunction, he accepted the fact that climate change was caused by carbon dioxide emissions, and, that if it continued, it would cause devastating environmental destruction due to rising temperatures. He also asked the litigants to provide further submissions on the extent of the government’s duty of care.

Australia has been especially hard hit by rising temperatures. The country suffered one of its worst wildfire seasons in history during the summer of 2020 when thousands of acres of land and homes burned.

The federal court reversed this decision on appeal from Minister Ley. While chief justice James Allsop wrote that the “threat of climate change and global warming was and is not in dispute between the parties in this litigation,” he said this was not grounds to impose a duty of care on the environment minister.

The federal court gave several reasons for its decision. It ruled that the “posited duty throws up for consideration at the point of breach matters that are core policy questions unsuitable in their nature and character” for the courts to decide. Allsop wrote that it was difficult to determine the level of liability incurred by the environment minister when she approved a project. Additionally, the court found that the previous ruling was inconsistent with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which gives the environmental minister responsibility for decision-making.

While finding for Ley, the court did reject a submission from her lawyers that some of the court’s previous findings were incorrect. According to a report in the Guardian, the attorney representing the children called the court’s decision “disappointing” and that he would review the decision to determine the next steps.