- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Australia
- /
- Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd
Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd
About this case
Filing year
2023
Status
Dismissed
Geography
Court/admin entity
Australia → Federal Court of Australia → General Division
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals (Global) → Corporations (Global) → Environmental assessment and permitting (Global)
Principal law
Australia → Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (Cth)Australia → Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006
At issue
Whether a new risk assessment before a gas export pipeline construction is necessary, under section 17(6) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009, when the pipeline route passes water sacred to certain tribes and when there may be embedded artifacts or ancestorial burial grounds along the path.
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
11/28/2024
Order for applicants to pay respondent
Decision
11/15/2023
Interlocutory injunction granted
Decision
Summary
This case was brought on Oct. 30, 2023 by Simon Munkara, later joined by Carol Maria Puruntatameri and Maria Simplicia Purtaningatipuamantumirri, Aboriginal people of the Tiwi Islands belonging to the Jikilaruwu, Munupi, and Malawu clan groups. The applicants sought to restrain Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd from commencing construction of a 262 km gas export pipeline in the Timor Sea, authorized under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth). They argued that under section 17(6) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009, Santos was required to submit a revised environment plan because of the “occurrence of a new significant environmental risk.” The asserted new risks included the pipeline’s intrusion into waters spiritually significant to the Tiwi people, interference with ancestral songlines, and the possibility of disturbing artifacts or ancestral burial grounds along the pipeline’s route.
Because the action was initiated two days before construction was scheduled to begin, the Court granted an interim injunction on Nov. 2, 2023 restraining works until Nov. 13, 2023. On Nov. 15, 2023, the Court issued an interlocutory injunction of narrower scope, preventing construction along most of the pipeline route except the northernmost 86 km, effective until Jan. 15, 2024.
The trial proceeded in December 2023. On Jan. 15, 2024, Justice Charlesworth dismissed the application. The Court held that “occurrence of a risk” under regulation 17(6) refers to objective circumstances creating a danger, not to subjective states of knowledge. It found insufficient evidence of a spiritual connection between the applicants and the sea area affected by the pipeline and concluded that the chance of archaeological remains being present was negligible, falling short of a “new significant risk” .
Following dismissal, the Court discharged the interlocutory injunction and ordered the applicants to pay Santos’s costs on a lump-sum basis, with costs to be assessed by the Registrar. Provision was made for further applications regarding variation of the costs order.