NSW Supreme Court dismisses $1.5 billion Murray-Darling class action against MDBA

28,000 irrigators lose bid for compensation over river management; plaintiffs consider appeal

edit

By LineZotpaper

Published31 August 2026

Read Time3 min

The New South Wales Supreme Court has dismissed a landmark class action brought by 28,000 irrigators against the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), rejecting claims that the authority owed a duty of care to avoid economic losses from river management decisions. The action sought damages of between $750 million and $1.5 billion.

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found in favour of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in a long-running class action over river management.

The action, which sought damages of between $750 million and $1.5 billion, was brought on behalf of 28,000 irrigators from the central Murray region of southern NSW and the Goulburn Murray region of northern Victoria.

It claimed the MDBA mismanaged river operations, causing lower water allocations, a loss of profits and higher temporary water prices, which meant some farmers could not meet supply contracts.

But Justice Tim Faulkner found the MDBA had no duty of care to avoid pure economic loss to one group of people over another, and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs.

In handing down his findings, Justice Faulkner said the MDBA was the independent body responsible for implementing the water-sharing framework agreed to by the states, and that the Murray River system was to be operated in the "public interest".

He accepted the defendant's submission that having a duty to irrigators would distort its independent role in exercising the provisions of the agreement in sharing water between the states.

The justice also found that as water allocations to individual irrigators were determined by respective states, there was not a sufficient relationship between the MDBA and the plaintiffs for a duty of care to be owed.

Southern Riverina Irrigators chief executive Sophie Baldwin said the plaintiffs would consider the judgment and avenues to appeal against the decision.

"Look, it is pretty disappointing, but I guess what I would say to people is it's not a loss," she said. "I guess we've got to just digest what's happened today, have a bit of a look at the judgment and then go from there."

The case centred around over-bank flooding at the Barmah Choke, a narrow section of the Murray River between Tocumwal and Deniliquin in southern NSW, from 2017 to 2019.

The plaintiffs argued the MDBA failed to follow its own operating plan, that over-bank transfers which flooded the Barmah-Millewa forest were unjustified and known by the MDBA to cause high transmission losses.

The defence argued that over-bank transfers were not "unprecedented" and were done to ensure there was sufficient water to meet supply in South Australia. It said the decisions were guided by modelling and the "experience of the MDBA operations team".

During the hearing last year, counsel for the MDBA, Sophie Callan SC, said the lawsuit was the latest manifestation of a problem that had existed since Federation.

"Namely that the waters of the Murray are a scarce resource, subject to conflicting claims between those interested in the use and conservation of the waters," she told the court.

Analysis

Why This Matters

The ruling delivers a major financial blow to 28,000 irrigators who sought up to $1.5 billion in damages for lost profits and contract failures due to river management.
The decision affirms that the MDBA's primary duty is to implement the water-sharing framework in the public interest, not to protect the economic interests of any particular water user.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between agricultural water users and the authority managing a scarce resource, with implications for future water allocation disputes.

Background

This case arose from a period from 2017 to 2019 when the MDBA allowed over-bank flooding at the Barmah Choke, a narrow section of the Murray River. Irrigators argued that these operations caused high water transmission losses, reducing their allocations and raising temporary water prices. The MDBA countered that the transfers were necessary to meet downstream supply obligations to South Australia and were based on modelling and operational experience. The class action was one of the largest in Australian agricultural history.

Key Perspectives

Irrigators and Southern Riverina Irrigators: Argue that the MDBA mismanaged the river, causing economic losses, and that the authority should be accountable for failing to follow its own operating plan. They are considering an appeal. Murray-Darling Basin Authority: Maintains that its role is to implement the water-sharing framework in the public interest and that imposing a duty of care to irrigators would compromise its independent function. The court agreed, noting that individual allocations are determined by states, not the MDBA. Critics/Skeptics: Some may argue that the case reveals systemic flaws in how water is managed across state boundaries, and that without a duty of care, irrigators have limited legal recourse if they believe river operations unfairly harm them.

What to Watch

Whether the plaintiffs file an appeal against the judgment, and if so, on what grounds.
The cost implications for the 28,000 irrigators, who have been ordered to pay the MDBA's legal costs.
Future litigation or policy changes as the tension between water users and the MDBA continues over scarce Murray-Darling resources.

Sources

28,000 irrigators lose $1.5-billion Murray Darling class action — Just In