Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Inc (DAMSHEG) v MACH Energy Australia

This case was brought to the Land and Environment Court of NSW as a Class 4 judicial review, a proceeding seeking judicial review of administrative decisions under planning or environmental laws. The applicants, Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group Incorporated ("DAMSHEG"), challenged a determination of the Independent Planning Commission of NSW ("Commission"), made on Sep. 6, 2022. The determination granted MACH Energy Australia Pty Ltd ("MACH") operating its open cut coal mine for 22 additional years. At the land and environment court, DAMSHEG alleged the project was invalid on eight grounds. Among them were the Commission's "fail[ure] to consider the likely impacts of Scope 3 emissions, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality," "irrational and illogical form of reasoning," "fail[ure] to consider DAMSHEG’s submissions and specific accompanying expert reports in relation to the effect of the Scope 3 emissions," and "fail[ure] to adhere to the standard of reasonableness when reaching its conclusions." Justice Robson, in his decision filed Aug. 19, 2024, dismissed the application. Explaining that the function of the court is to "ensur[e] that the Commission carried out its functions in accordance with the statutory provisions" and not to "undertake merits review of the Commission’s findings," the court found that because the Commission adequately considered air quality matters including greenhouse gas emission, imposed conditions to set specific air quality criteria, and reviewed the potential negative impacts with the mitigating measures, that the Commission's approval of the project was reasonable. However, on appeal, held May 26, 2025, and decided July 24, 2025, Justices Ward, Adamson, and Price quashed the Commission's approval, finding it invalid. The court, looking into the language of §4.15(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), concluded that the Commission failed to act according to §4.15(1)(b). The court clarified that in considering the likely impacts of a project, not only the contribution to global climate change but also the impact of climate change on the locality should be considered. They further elaborated that the fact that the impacts of climate change are uncontroversial does not excuse the Commission from failing to consider it in the locality and community context.