3M signals aggressive defence against Commonwealth's $2 billion PFAS lawsuit

Company to contest public nuisance claim and seek to narrow case from six bases to one

By LineZotpaper

Published16 October 2026

Read Time2 min

Sources2 outlets

US chemical giant 3M outlined its planned defence on Thursday against the Commonwealth's $2 billion lawsuit over PFAS contamination at 28 Australian Defence Force bases, telling the Federal Court it will 'attack' the largest claim ever brought by the Australian government when it files its formal defence in December.

US chemical giant 3M has signalled it will mount an aggressive defence against the Commonwealth's $2 billion lawsuit over PFAS contamination at 28 Defence Force bases, the largest court claim ever brought by the Australian government.

The Commonwealth's 1,600-page statement of claim alleges 3M continued to make and sell aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) until 2003 despite knowing since 1979 that its chemical make-up was dangerous. The government's lawyers say the foam's use "resulted in significant contamination" of land and water, including drinking water, posing risks to human and animal health and the environment.

Citing 310 internal company documents, the Commonwealth alleges 3M falsely assured customers the product was safe even though studies showed variants of PFAS were toxic to animals, could cause birth defects and harmed the environment.

At a case management hearing before Justice Catherine Button, 3M's King's Counsel Phillip Solomon said a "large team is working hard" on the defence, due to be filed on December 11. He told the court the company would plead to three courses of action: public nuisance, a Victorian Environment Protection Authority claim, and a misleading and deceptive conduct claim, which would need to be "delineated" between the overseas manufacturer and the local distributor.

Mr Solomon said the company would contend a public nuisance claim was not available in the matter. "We will plead and ultimately contend that it doesn't contend a nuisance claim," he said.

The two sides also disagree on how the case should be tested. The 28 bases fall into three categories, from steady state sites to those in exceedance of Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and Recreational Guidelines. The Commonwealth, represented by Fiona McLeod AO SC, wants six "representative bases" including Wagga, Tindal, Townsville, Oakey, Edinburgh and East Sale, to cover issues such as cross-contamination, topography and soil type. The defence is seeking to focus on a single base instead.

Communities near affected bases, such as Williamtown in NSW, have been exposed to PFAS from firefighting foam used at RAAF bases for years.

Analysis

Why This Matters

The case determines who pays for contamination at 28 Defence bases across Australia, where PFAS has tainted land and drinking water.
It is the largest civil claim the Australian government has ever brought, and its outcome could shape future litigation against chemical manufacturers.
PFAS "forever chemicals" are a global problem, and communities near military sites in many countries face similar contamination from firefighting foam.

Background

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a large group of synthetic chemicals that persist in the environment and accumulate in living things, earning them the label "forever chemicals." They were used for decades in aqueous film-forming foam for fighting fuel fires, the product at the centre of this case. The Commonwealth alleges 3M sold the foam to the Australian military until 2003 despite internal studies, cited across 310 documents, showing health and environmental risks as early as 1979. The 28 bases have been grouped into three categories, from steady state sites to those in exceedance of Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and Recreational Guidelines.

Key Perspectives

The Commonwealth: Alleges 3M caused a public nuisance by interfering with the use and enjoyment of the environment and hindering access to contaminant-free water. It wants the case tested across six representative bases that cover cross-contamination, topography and soil type. 3M: Will attack the claim on three fronts: public nuisance, a Victorian Environment Protection Authority claim, and misleading and deceptive conduct. It argues the public nuisance claim is not available, wants the misleading conduct case split between manufacturer and distributor, and seeks to focus on one base rather than six. Affected communities: Residents around bases such as Williamtown in NSW have lived with PFAS exposure from firefighting foam for years. The case will decide whether 3M or the taxpayer bears the cost of remediation and compensation.

What to Watch

The defence is due to be filed on December 11; the strength of 3M's arguments will become clear then.
Whether the court accepts the Commonwealth's plan for six representative bases or narrows the case to a single base as 3M wants.
The fate of the public nuisance claim, which 3M contests at the threshold, could shape the scope of the entire case.

Sources

3M lays out 'attack' on Commonwealth's $2 billion PFAS lawsuit — Latest business news
3M lays out 'attack' on Commonwealth's $2 billion PFAS lawsuit — Just In