Victoria

Australia

Northern Territory

Queensland

Australian Capital Territory

Western Australia

South Australia

New South Wales

Tasmania

On September 20, 2021, Environment Victoria launched a legal action against the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and AGL Energy, EnergyAustralia, and Alinta, owners of Victoria’s three remaining coal-burning power stations. The plaintiffs question EPA’s review of three power station licenses, which lacked more stringent limits on GHG emissions. Environment Victoria argues that the EPA has failed to require best practice management of toxic emissions, take proper account of the environmental principles in the Environment Protection Act and consider key sections of the 2017 Climate Change Act. Environment Australia asks the court to revoke, amend, and attach certain conditions to the licenses. 

In November 2017, the EPA announced the review of Victoria’s coal power stations. In March 2021, the EPA announced new license conditions for the state’s three remaining coal power stations. In August 2021, the EPA granted the permits and capped GHG emissions at “approximately current levels,” instead of lowering the required standards. Victoria’s Climate Change Act requires the EPA to consider climate change in their review of coal power station licenses, which, according to the plaintiffs, the EPA failed to do. The emissions form the coal-burning power stations represent about 40% of Victoria’s total emissions. The plaintiffs also question the limits on toxic air pollution, including sulfur dioxide, fine particles (PM2.5) and mercury. 

The trial commenced before Justice James Gorton of the Victorian Supreme Court on October 18, 2022. The Supreme Court upheld EPA's limits on emissions and pollutants from coal powered plants.


In a hearing held on May 1, 2015, plaintiff appealed a denial of his application by the Bass Coast Shire Council to subdivide a plot of land. The applicant argued that these smaller lots would allow for more flexible arrangements in regards to impacts from climate change. The Council found the proposed subdivision to be inconsistent with the state and local planning policy in regards to the protection of agricultural land as well as the purpose and objectives of the Farming Zone and against the orderly and proper planning of the area.

In a decision issued on June 12, 2015, the Tribunal upheld the decision, finding that while climate change is occurring, it would not have a significant impact on this particular region or property. Further, subdividing the property was not shown to improve farm economics and viability, and would actually potentially stifle production innovation. 


In a hearing held on November 9, 2015, Marjorie Johnston for the Silverleaves Conservation Society applied for a review of a decision by the Bass Coast Shire Council granting a permit to a development. The development was for a three-level building. She applied for review under section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The objections to the permit included consideration of environmental impact and landscape impacts, among others. The sole reason a planning permit was needed for the building was because its height exceeded seven meters from ground level.
    In an order issued on December 16, 2015, the Court granted the permit to develop the land, finding the development plan to be acceptable. In reaching this decision, the Court considered the coastal hazards posed to the building from climate change, although these hazards were not raised in the grounds of the objections. The Court found that the design plan accounted for potential future sea level rise and flooding. 


Victoria

Recent cases