Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLEC 110

Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLEC 110

The IPC did not err in law by considering the project’s relative greenhouse gas emissions advantage over coal, appropriately evaluated environmental impacts under statutory requirements, rationally limited emissions conditions to those within the proponent’s control, and was reasonable in not conditioning downstream emissions or considering pipeline impacts beyond the project application. No grounds for judicial review were established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['development Consent' 'greenhouse Gas Emissions' 'judicial Review' 'statutory Interpretation' 'conditions of Consent' 'mining and Petroleum Production' 'scope 3 Emissions' 'legal Unreasonableness']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['development Consent' 'greenhouse Gas Emissions' 'judicial Review' 'statutory Interpretation' 'conditions of Consent' 'mining and Petroleum Production' 'scope 3 Emissions' 'legal Unreasonableness']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the consent authority failed to consider the environmental impacts of the project's greenhouse gas emissions as required by statute" 'Whether failure to impose conditions on downstream (Scope 3) emissions misconstrued statutory requirements' 'Whether the decision not to condition Scope 3 emissions was legally unreasonable' 'Whether the impacts of a transmission pipeline should have been considered despite not being part of the development application']

Ratio Decidendi

The IPC did not err in law by considering the project’s relative greenhouse gas emissions advantage over coal, appropriately evaluated environmental impacts under statutory requirements, rationally limited emissions conditions to those within the proponent’s control, and was reasonable in not conditioning downstream emissions or considering pipeline impacts beyond the project application. No grounds for judicial review were established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' "If the first respondent seeks an order that the applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings, the first respondent is to file and serve written submissions on costs by 1 November 2021." 'If the first respondent does seek a costs order under order (2), the applicant is...