- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Australia
- /
- Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated v Minister for the Environment and Energy
Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated v Minister for the Environment and Energy
About this case
Filing year
2015
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
Australia → Federal Court of Australia
Case category
Suits against governments (Global) → Environmental assessment and permitting (Global) → Natural resource extraction (Global)
Principal law
Australia → Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
At issue
Whether the Minister was required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) to consider the impact of scope three greenhouse gas emissions on the climate and the Great Barrier Reef when deciding whether to approve a coal mine.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
12/15/2020
Decision
08/25/2017
Decision
Summary
The Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated filed a judicial review challenge in a suit against the Minister for the Environment and Energy and Adani over the development of a coal mine in the lower suit. The ACF appealed the decision dismissing the judicial review challenge. Adani proposed to develop and operate a coal mine and associated infrastructure in Central Queensland. The ACF alleged error by the Minister in failing to determine the impact of combustion emissions on the Great Barrier Reef under s 527E of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Minister had approved the coal mine project on October 14, 2015.
The Act requires consideration of the proposal in connection with, among other things, its effects upon the environment. There is a prohibition upon the taking of action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment. The ACF claimed that the Minister made an error of law in failing to consider the effect of emissions from transport by rail, shipping, and combustion of the product coal overseas, in characterising these emissions as “not a direct consequence of the proposed action,” and in failing to consider or apply the precautionary principle in relation to the possible impacts on relevant matters of national environmental significance. The court upheld the lower court’s findings that the Minister’s reasons reflected a proper discharge of his statutory duty in a judgement issued on August 25, 2017.
However, in a judgement issued December 15, 2017, the Court accepted that matters concerning the Reef and climate change were important to Australians. It ordered that the appellant pay each respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Risk
Impacted group
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance