Tasmanian Wilderness Society Inc v Fraser [1982] HCA 37

High Court of Australia Mason J. Tasmanian Wilderness Society Inc v Fraser [1982] HCA 37

ORDER Application dismissed. Costs will be defendants' costs in the action. Grant leave to the plaintiffs to amend the proceedings by joining Robin Trevor Gray as an additional defendant and by claiming interlocutory and permanent relief against him in the same terms as that claimed against the first two defendants.

Cur. adv. vult.

Mason J. delivered the following written judgment:—

June 18 Mason J

This is an application for interlocutory injunctions relating to the consideration next week by the Australian Loan Council (which I shall call the "A.L.C.") of a submission by the State of Tasmania for approval for the borrowing of funds for the implementation of the Gordon below Franklin Hydro-Electric Power Development Scheme (the "Scheme"). The three plaintiffs are the Tasmanian Wilderness Society Inc., and two companies. The first plaintiff is a society whose objects are to preserve and protect the wilderness of Tasmania. It has between 3,000 and 4,000 members of whom approximately one-half are residents of that State. It also has a limited commercial interest in the region known as South-West Tasmania in selling articles relating to the region. The two companies are tourist operators in the same region. One conducts commercial tourist services by boat up the Gordon River from Macquarie Harbour. The other provides commercial wilderness tours in the wilderness region of South-West Tasmania. The defendants are the Prime Minister, the Commonwealth Treasurer and the Commonwealth. It is agreed that the Treasurer is the Commonwealth representative at the next A.L.C. meeting and that the Prime Minister will attend in a capacity styled as observer.

Although the relief sought affects the State of Tasmania and the A.L.C., neither that State nor the members of the A.L.C. other than the second defendant have been joined as defendants in the actions or as respondents to the present application. The plaintiffs have applied for leave to amend by joining the Premier of the State, who is a member of the A.L.C., but attempts to have him accept service informally have not met with success. They asked me to make an order under O. 16, r. 2 of the High Court Rules, that the first two defendants, or one of them, represent the other members of the A.L.C. I declined to make this order because it seemed to me that the interest of the first two defendants in this action is different from other members of the A.L.C. and because the interests of members of the A.L.C. with respect to the Tasmanian submission may differ as between themselves.