Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (No 2) [2022] FCA 1121

Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (No 2) [2022] FCA 1121

NOPSEMA did not lawfully perform its statutory task as it was not reasonably satisfied—nor could it have been—on the material before it that the Drilling EP demonstrated consultation with each relevant person as required by reg 11A(1)(d). The Drilling EP and the assessment process lacked sufficient information or clarity about the methodology used by Santos to identify all relevant persons, particularly concerning traditional owners and their sea country interests, and NOPSEMA failed to consider probative material identifying potential relevant persons not consulted. As reasonable satisfaction was a mandatory precondition to NOPSEMA’s decision, its absence meant the acceptance decision...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part. NOPSEMA’s acceptance of the Barossa Drilling Environment Plan set aside; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'consultation Requirements' 'environment Plans' 'offshore Petroleum Regulation']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law'] ['judicial Review' 'consultation Requirements' 'environment Plans' 'offshore Petroleum Regulation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether NOPSEMA lawfully formed the state of reasonable satisfaction required to accept the Drilling Environment Plan (EP) under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (Cth), specifically regarding consultation with all relevant persons as required by reg 11A(1)(d).' 'Whether NOPSEMA failed to perform the universe of relevant persons inquiry and/or failed to consider probative information about traditional owners’ sea country interests.']

Ratio Decidendi

NOPSEMA did not lawfully perform its statutory task as it was not reasonably satisfied—nor could it have been—on the material before it that the Drilling EP demonstrated consultation with each relevant person as required by reg 11A(1)(d). The Drilling EP and the assessment process lacked sufficient information or clarity about the methodology used by Santos to identify all relevant persons, particularly concerning traditional owners and their sea country interests, and NOPSEMA failed to consider probative material identifying potential relevant persons not consulted. As reasonable satisfaction was a mandatory precondition to NOPSEMA’s decision, its absence meant the acceptance decision...

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part. NOPSEMA’s acceptance of the Barossa Drilling Environment Plan set aside; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The decision made by the First Respondent on 14 March 2022 pursuant to reg 10(1)(a) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (Cth) to accept the Barossa Development Drilling and Completions Environment Plan is set aside.' 'Order 1 shall not take effect until 6 October...