Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor

The Land Court of Queensland issued its recommendation in Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5 on Mar. 20, 2025, after hearing the matter on the papers on Oct. 15, 2024. The proceeding concerned an application by Sungela Pty Ltd and Bowen Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd for a new mining lease, MLA 700061, to extend operations at the Ensham thermal coal mine in Queensland’s Central Bowen Basin. Because objections had been lodged—three remained, but none were prosecuted—the application was referred to the Court for a recommendation to the responsible Minister under section 269 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989.  President P.G. Stilgoe recorded that an environmental authority covering the broader extension project had already issued, but emphasized the Court’s distinct recommendatory task under the MRA. The Court identified the standard suite of section 269(4) factors and treated the objectors’ issues—ranging from assessment-process flaws to biodiversity, groundwater, cumulative impacts, economic demand, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions/climate change—even though the objectors elected not to participate. The applicants ultimately relied on affidavits from company-connected witnesses rather than independent technical experts, prompting the Court to assess those materials with particular care when weighing their relevance and probative value.  On the statutory criteria, the Court accepted evidence that the lease area was mineralized (roughly 85 million tonnes of high-energy, low-ash thermal coal), that mining would proceed via extensions to existing underground workings with no need for new surface infrastructure, and that the proposed size, shape, and a 25-year term were otherwise suitable to realize extraction and complete rehabilitation and closure by about 2050. The Court also recorded that the lease would overlap only minimally with other resource tenures and, based on the material before it, would not disadvantage existing permit holders.  As to environmental effects, the Court considered flora, fauna, groundwater, surface water, and cumulative impacts. Based on the technical reports tendered, it accepted that predicted local environmental impacts could be managed through conditions and monitoring under the environmental authority, with minimal adverse effects anticipated if the extension proceeded as proposed.  The decisive issue was climate change. While the record included various quantifications of Scope 1–2 emissions and an estimate of total Scope 3 emissions of approximately 63.6 Mt CO₂-e over 20 years (about 3.18 Mt CO₂-e per year on average), the applicants did not persuade the Court that they had made “real and significant” progress on mitigation. In particular, the Court noted the absence of the required GHG emissions reduction management plan and a lack of concrete evidence that proposed measures (e.g., methane flaring and other efficiencies) had been implemented or advanced beyond aspiration. Given that GHG emissions from the lease would contribute, however modestly in percentage terms, to climate change, the Court determined that a positive recommendation could not be made on the evidence supplied.  The Court also addressed Queensland’s Human Rights Act 2019 (s. 58), recognizing—consistent with prior Land Court authority (Waratah)—that activities increasing GHG emissions can engage and limit protected rights, including the right to life and the protection of children. On the materials before it, and without relying on the environmental authority process to resolve human-rights balancing, the Court concluded that whether such limitations were reasonable or justifiable depended in part on credible mitigation steps—which the applicants had not adequately demonstrated.  Accordingly, on Mar. 20, 2025, the Land Court recommended that MLA 700061 “not be approved unless and until” the applicants show real and significant progress toward mitigating their GHG emissions, and directed the Registrar to provide the reasons to the Minister administering the MRA.