The ACT Court of Appeal has dismissed legal action against the NSW Government over the devastating bushfires that tore through border regions and into Canberra in 2003.

It says the State Government did not owe a duty of care to avoid risk or harm to people whose properties were destroyed.

The Government was also protected by a liability exclusion in the Rural Fires Act for acts or omissions made in good faith.

Electro Optic Systems and Wayne and Lesley West had argued incident controllers were negligent in their strategy to contain fires in the Brindabella Range. The fires started during an electrical storm in January 2003, leading to four deaths and injuring hundreds of people.

The Wests’ home near the Brindabella National Park was burnt out and they and 29 other property-owners insured by QBE sued NSW for damages.

They alleged a National Parks and Wildlife Service employee and a Rural Fire Service (RFS) member breached a duty to take reasonable care in controlling the bushfire.

The QBE plaintiffs, excluding the Wests, suffered loss only in the ACT.

They claimed the RFS breached a duty to warn ACT residents about the dangers of the blaze, which split into several fires before reaching the suburbs of Canberra.

When the case first went to the Supreme Court a judge found the incident controllers were negligent.

But although NSW would have been liable at common law, it was protected from liability under the Rural Fires Act and the Civil Liability Act.

Electro Optic and the Wests have now failed on appeal, and the judges say the appeal is intended to bind all the QBE plaintiffs.

Chief Justice Helen Murrell gave a summary before handing down a 743-paragraph judgement, noting considerable public interest in the case.

The appeal judges say imposing a duty of care on bushfire incident controllers “would potentially distort the important functions of an incident controller”.

They also note the fires were caused by lightning, rather than government action.

Even if there was a duty to warn Canberrans of the fire danger, it was not proved that NSW had breached that duty.