I have previously reported that the ACT Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Supreme Court to dismiss all claims against NSW over its response to the fires that started on 8 January 2003 and burned into Canberra on 18 January 2003 (‘ACT Court of Appeal upholds verdict in favour of NSW over Canberra 2003 bushfires, (November 3, 2014)).
An appeal to the Court of Appeal is the final step unless someone seeks to take the matter to the High Court of Australia. An appeal to the High Court is not a ‘right’, rather a party needs to persuade the court that there is a legal issue that demands the Court’s attention – that is the Court needs to grant ‘leave’ to allow a party to appeal. The ABC has reported that one of the litigants in this matter, Wayne West, has decided not to pursue an application for leave to appeal to the High Court – ‘Canberra 2003 bushfires victim gives up fight for damages from NSW Government’ ABC Online, 29 November 2014. (I apologise for the delay in reporting this, but I’m catching up on news from the summer break – see also ‘Further legal ruling affecting ‘Doctors as ‘good Samaritans’ – do I have to stop?’ (January 3, 2015)). There’s never been any suggestion that the other litigant, QBE Insurance, would seek to take the matter to the High Court so I think it’s safe to say that the litigation over these fires has now, finally, been resolved.
If that is the case then the final outcome was that the ACT paid some money to settle the matter even though they settled on the basis that there was a ‘verdict for the defendant’ (‘Canberra bushfire litigation settles against the ACT’ (September 20, 2012)). The State of NSW was found to have been negligent by the Supreme Court, but was not liable because of provisions that protect the fire services from liability for acts performed in good faith. The finding of negligence was set aside by the Court of Appeal with the result that NSW was exonerated from any legal blame for the fires or their consequences.
Australian Emergency Law 
Many thanks Michael on your expert coverage of the litigation arising out of the Canberra bush-fires and what it means for the NSW RFS and its volunteer rural firefighters under the limited protection afforded them by the NSW Rural Fires Act. Litigants in these cases are always looking for the party with the deepest pocket (NSW Government in this case). But more often than not the individual fire-fighters who are out there putting their health and safety at risk get caught up in this sort of litigation and the stigma that may forever attach to them from a finding by a Court of negligence, albeit in good faith. It is so easy to be wise in retrospect after these climatrix fires to say, if I had thought about it better at the time i would have done xx instead! We are not robots, but individuals who are fallible, with varying degrees of skill, competence and decision making in times of emergency, even at the highest levels of control and decision-making forced upon us in circumstances not of our making. The common object however is that we all, whether paid employees or volunteers, must at all times be trying to protect the safety of persons and property. That is where the good faith rubic comes in to play. I often wonder whether in these cases it should be a requirerment that the judge hearing the case, whether at first instance or on an appeal, should be (or be assisted by a friend of the Court) who has experienced at first hand the terror of fighting an out of control wild bush fire at first instance or having to be in control of numerous brigades that have to do this.