- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Australia
- /
- Dennis Murphy Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & Anor
Dennis Murphy Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & Anor
About this case
Filing year
2022
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
Australia → Federal Court of Australia
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals (Global) → Corporations (Global) → Environmental assessment and permitting (Global) → Natural resource extraction (Global)Suits against governments (Global) → Environmental assessment and permitting (Global) → Natural resource extraction (Global)
Principal law
Australia → Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (Cth)
At issue
Whether, in the course of preparing its environment plan for regulatory approval, Santos should have consulted with the applicant and his community; Whether the applicant and his community are considered “relevant persons” for consultation under the relevant regulations
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
12/02/2022
Decision
–
09/21/2022
Decision from the Federal Court of Australia
Decision
–
Summary
The applicant, Munupi Senior Lawman and Tiwi Traditional Owner Dennis Tipakalippa, is from the Tiwi islands, a biodiversity haven approximately 80 kilometres north of the Australian city of Darwin. The applicant sued the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA), the Australian Government’s offshore energy regulator, and an oil and gas company, Santos Limited, over the approval of plans to drill the Barossa gas field in waters off Northern Australia. The applicant claimed that NOPSEMA did not have jurisdiction because the requisite consultations with the applicant were carried out.
Proceedings regarding an application for an interlocutory injunction restraining Santos from commencing or continuing offshore drilling until the expedited final hearing, which was scheduled for six weeks after the proceedings for interlocutory relief, commenced on July 13, 2022. After accepting that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case, the injunction was denied on the basis that drilling will not have gotten underway to a significant extent by the time the hearing came about and of earlier representations made by the applicant indicating he was prepared to accept harm occasioned by the drilling of one well over a short period in order to be availed of the opportunity to stop the vast majority of the approved drilling at an expedited hearing.
In a decision issued on September 21, 2022, the Federal Court of Australia found that NOPSEMA was not lawfully satisfied that consultation had occurred. An order was made to set aside the decision approving Santos Limited’s drilling plans. Work has been paused on the project and Santos Limited will be unable to continue the project without the approval.
The matter decision is currently on appeal before the Full Court. The Full Court’s judgment in the Tiwi Barossa Appeal (Santos v Tipakalippa and Anor). On December 2, 2022, the Full Court dismissed 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
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance