Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water [2024] FCAFC 56

Environment Council of Central Queensland Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water [2024] FCAFC 56

The appeals failed because the appellant's grounds were founded largely on an incorrect reading of the Minister's reasons. The Minister accepted substantial new information about climate change, accepted that global greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of coal and gas increase climate change effects, and accepted that those effects will adversely affect the identified matters of national environmental significance. The Minister then lawfully addressed whether the proposed actions themselves were a substantial cause of those indirect impacts for s 527E(1)(b). It was open to her to conclude that the information did not demonstrate that the proposed actions would cause a net increase in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeals From Federal Court Judicial Review and Costs Judgments Concerning Reconsideration Requests Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth) / Full Court Appeal; Appeals Dismissed
Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth)' 'controlled Action Decisions' 'reconsideration Under S 78 and S 78 A' 'greenhouse Gas Emissions' 'climate Change Impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance' 'indirect Impacts' 'substantial Cause' 'legal Irrationality']
['environmental Law' 'administrative Law' 'judicial Review'] ['environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth)' 'controlled Action Decisions' 'reconsideration Under S 78 and S 78 A' 'greenhouse Gas Emissions' 'climate Change Impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance' 'indirect Impacts' 'substantial Cause' 'legal Irrationality']

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

Appeals From Federal Court Judicial Review and Costs Judgments Concerning Reconsideration Requests Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (cth) / Full Court Appeal; Appeals Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Minister misconstrued or misapplied s 78(1)(a) and s 527E of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) by using alleged substitution reasoning or netting off when assessing impacts of the proposed coal mine extensions.' 'Whether the Minister failed to consider impacts that the proposed actions were likely to have, in the sense of a real or not remote chance or possibility.' "Whether the Minister's reasoning about net global greenhouse gas emissions and future scenarios was irrational or legally unreasonable." 'Whether the evidence of Dr Matthew Gidden was admissible or material to the irrationality ground.' 'Whether the Minister erred or acted irrationally in concluding that the proposed actions would not be a substantial cause of the physical effects of climate change on matters protected by Part 3 of the EPBC Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals failed because the appellant's grounds were founded largely on an incorrect reading of the Minister's reasons. The Minister accepted substantial new information about climate change, accepted that global greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of coal and gas increase climate change effects, and accepted that those effects will adversely affect the identified matters of national environmental significance. The Minister then lawfully addressed whether the proposed actions themselves were a substantial cause of those indirect impacts for s 527E(1)(b). It was open to her to conclude that the information did not demonstrate that the proposed actions would cause a net increase in...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'On or before 30 May 2024 the parties file agreed proposed minutes of order in relation to the costs of the appeal.' 'In the absence of any agreement pursuant to order 2, on or before 13 June 2024 each party file any submissions they wish to make on the question of costs, limited to three...