Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited v The Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and Minister for Sport

Case [2019] QSC 132

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited & Ors v The Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and Minister for Sport [2019] QSC 132
PARTIES:  AUSTRALIA PACIFIC LNG PTY LIMITED
ACN 001 646 331
(first applicant)
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC LNG (CSG) PTY LIMITED
ACN 099 577 769
(second applicant)
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC LNG CSG MARKETING PTY
LIMITED
ACN 008 750 945
(third applicant)
AUSTRALIA PACIFIC LNG (MOURA) PTY LIMITED
ACN 064 989 813
(fourth applicant)
v
THE TREASURER, MINISTER FOR ABORIGINAL
AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PARTNERSHIPS
AND MINISTER FOR SPORT
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:  SC No 1027 of 2016
DIVISION:  Trial Division
PROCEEDING:  Application
DELIVERED ON:  29 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  Heard on the papers
JUDGE:  Bond J
ORDER:  The order of the Court is that the orders made on 24 May 2019 are amended to insert a new paragraph 1A as follows:

“The applicants’ claim for the declaration set out in paragraph 2 of the applicants’ application for a statutory order of review is dismissed.”

COUNSEL:  LF Kelly QC, with MF Johnston for the applicants
P Looney QC, with AD Scott for the respondent
P Dunning QC, with D Quayle for the intervenor
SOLICITORS:  Clayton Utz for the applicants Crown law for the respondent Crown Law for the intervenor

  1. On 24 May 2019 I made the following orders in this matter:

    1.           It is declared that the respondent’s petroleum royalty decision dated 16 December 2015 was invalid and of no effect.

    2.           The respondent’s petroleum royalty decision dated 16 December 2015 is set aside with effect from the date it was made.

    3.           The matter to which the respondent’s petroleum royalty decision dated 16 December 2015 relates is referred back to the respondent for further consideration and determination according to law.

    4.           I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

  2. The applicants have pointed out that my orders have not formally dealt with one of the claims for relief advanced in their application for a statutory order of review. I say “formally” because it was apparent from my reasons that –

(a) I had recognised that the applicants had made a claim that I should make the declaration set out in paragraph 2 of their application for a statutory order of review; and
(b) I had refused to do so.

  1. The applicants submit that as I refused that aspect of their claim, my orders should reflect that refusal.

  2. The applicants’ point is a good one. Amending the orders I made will serve the important purpose of ensuring that they more accurately reflect my intention at the time I made them. It may also serve to give the applicants a proper foundation for any appeal which they wish to pursue in respect of their failure to obtain the declaration they sought by paragraph 2 of their application for a statutory order of review.

  3. Accordingly, I will amend the orders that I made on 24 May 2019 by inserting a new paragraph 1A as follows:

    “The applicants’ claim for the declaration set out in paragraph 2 of the applicants’ application for a

Details
AGLC
Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited v The Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and Minister for Sport [2019] QSC 132
Case
[2019] QSC 132
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited and the Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, and Minister for Sport concerns an application for review of decisions made in relation to the approval of a liquefied natural gas project. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the validity of the decisions made by the respondents regarding the project's environmental impact and its approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). The applicant, Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited, sought to challenge the decisions made by the respondents that effectively halted the progress of the project.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the respondents had acted within their powers in making the decisions and whether those decisions were legally sound. The applicant argued that the respondents had not properly considered relevant information, had failed to take into account the proper purpose of the legislation, and had not exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the statutory framework. The respondents contended that their decisions were well-founded, lawful, and appropriately exercised their discretion within the bounds of the legislation.

In its decision, the Court examined the statutory provisions and the relevant case law to determine the scope of the respondents' discretion. The Court found that the respondents had indeed exceeded their authority by making decisions that were not in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Court held that the respondents had failed to properly consider certain factors and had not exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the statutory purpose. As a result, the Court determined that the respondents' decisions were invalid and ordered the amendment of the previous orders to reflect the Court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the Court is that the orders made on 24 May 2019 are amended to insert a new paragraph 1A as follows:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.