Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd [2021] HCA 2

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ,

BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND EDELMAN JJ

OAKEY COAL ACTION ALLIANCE INC APPELLANT

AND

NEW ACLAND COAL PTY LTD & ORS RESPONDENTS

Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd

[2021] HCA 2

Date of Hearing: 6 October 2020

Date of Judgment: 3 February 2021

B34/2020

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside orders 3 and 4 of the orders made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland on 1 November 2019 and, in their place, order that:

(a) orders 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the orders made by the Supreme Court of Queensland on 28 May 2018 be set aside;

(b) the first respondent's applications be referred back to the Land Court of Queensland to be reconsidered according to law;

(c) the decision of the second respondent made on 12 March 2019 under s 194 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) be set aside; and

(d) each party bear its own costs of the appeal and cross-appeal in that Court.

3. The first respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal to this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

J K Kirk SC with O R Jones and C J McGrath for the appellant (instructed by the Environmental Defenders Office)

D R Gore QC with D G Clothier QC and N Andreatidis QC for the first respondent (instructed by Clayton Utz)

Submitting appearances for the second and third respondents

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd

Administrative law – Apprehended bias – Relief – Jurisdiction of inferior courts – Where first respondent applied for additional mining leases and amendment to existing environmental authority ("applications") – Where appellant and others lodged objections to applications – Where first decision of Land Court of Queensland ("Land Court") recommended that both applications be rejected – Where Supreme Court of Queensland rejected arguments by first respondent that recommendations made by Land Court affected by apprehended bias, but held recommendations involved errors of law and remitted certain matters to Land Court for reconsideration – Where second decision of Land Court constituted by different Member recommended applications be approved subject to conditions – Where amendment to environmental authority granted by delegate of second respondent – Where Court of Appeal allowed cross-appeal by first respondent and held that recommendations in Land Court's first decision affected by apprehended bias – Whether open to Court of Appeal, after finding that recommendations in Land Court's first decision affected by apprehended bias, not to refer matters to which recommendations related back to Land Court for full reconsideration, and instead to make consequential orders limited to declaration that procedural fairness not observed – Whether matters to which recommendations related should not be referred back to Land Court on basis of discretion to refuse relief.