Western Australia

Australia

Northern Territory

Victoria

Queensland

Australian Capital Territory

South Australia

New South Wales

Tasmania

On December 21, 2020, the Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA) filed suit against the former chairman of the Western Australia EPA and the natural gas company Woodside, alleging that the EPA had allowed Woodside to process unlimited amounts of gas at two plants, in violation of the state's Environmental Protection Act. According to news reports, CCWA alleges that the state EPA had previously only allowed the plants to process gas from particular sources. Then, in July 2019, EPA made two decisions allowing the plants to process gas from any source, made under provisions of the Environmental Protection Act that allows minor changes to previous approvals without significant assessment. CCWA alleges that the environmental and climate impacts were major and should have triggered the full consideration of the EPA. According to news reports, Woodside is partnering with Shell, BP, Chevron, and BHP to extract, transport, and process the gas as part of the Burrup Hub project. 


At a three day hearing commencing on December 20, 2021, CCWA told the court that the former chairman of the Western Australia EPA (Hatton) had to “engage in his own intellectual process” when approving recommendations by the EPA to allow the plants to process gas from any source. The Court rejected this argument, saying that CCWA had not established the chair did not consider the possible environmental and climate impacts and had not proved the chair made an error.


This case concerned a development application for retrospective approval of partially completed alterations and additions to an historic warehouse building. One of the principal issues related to potential flooding and the decision is the first to apply the State Coastal Planning Policy anticipating a 0.38 meter increase in sea level due to climate change. The Tribunal determined that the development application warranted conditional approval. With respect to potential flooding, the Tribunal found that the level of the water table over the lifetime of the development, including anticipated increase in the water table due to sea level rise by 2100, would not compromise the structural stability of the building or cause water ingress. Thus, the proposal did not warrant refusal because of potential for flooding. The development application was approved subject to 40 conditions including conditions to ensure that the development is carried out in a manner that is appropriate having regard to heritage and amenity considerations. 

Western Australia

Recent cases