Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v Tipakalippa [2022] FCAFC 193

Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd v Tipakalippa [2022] FCAFC 193

The Regulations require broader consultation obligations that include traditional owners (such as Mr Tipakalippa and the Munupi clan), given their cultural and spiritual interests in sea country and marine resources. As Santos did not consult these persons, NOPSEMA could not lawfully be reasonably satisfied that consultation requirements under reg 11A were met; the acceptance of the Drilling EP was therefore infected by legal error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Single Judge's Decision on Judicial Review / Federal Court of Australia, Full Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'statutory Interpretation' 'consultation Obligations' 'environmental Law']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'statutory Interpretation' 'consultation Obligations' 'environmental Law']

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

Appeal From Single Judge's Decision on Judicial Review / Federal Court of Australia, Full Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Proper construction of consultation obligations under Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (Cth)' 'Whether traditional owners are ‘relevant persons’ under reg 11A(1)(d)' 'Whether the regulator could be reasonably satisfied that required consultations occurred']

Ratio Decidendi

The Regulations require broader consultation obligations that include traditional owners (such as Mr Tipakalippa and the Munupi clan), given their cultural and spiritual interests in sea country and marine resources. As Santos did not consult these persons, NOPSEMA could not lawfully be reasonably satisfied that consultation requirements under reg 11A were met; the acceptance of the Drilling EP was therefore infected by legal error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal." 'There be no order as to costs respecting the second respondent.']