Highlights

Here are just some of the highlights of the cases the EDO has been involved with:

The EDO represented the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Ratepayers and Residents Association (Inc) in legal action about whether the Association had a right to object to the grant of mining lease in the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. The EDO successfully argued before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that the Association, and indeed any member of the community, or community groups, had the right to object to the Mining Warden about the grant of mining tenements: Re Warden Heaney; ex parte Serpentine Jarrahdale Residents and Ratepayers Association (Inc) (1997) 18 WAR 320

The EDO represented four conservation groups in legal actions about the Department of Conservation and Land Management’s (CALM’s) management of high conservation areas of State forest. The EDO argued before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that CALM was bound by the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) to protect fauna in the forest. It also argued that CALM was bound to act in accordance with the detail of the forest management plan in force in WA’s south west forests. The Full Court dismissed the EDO’s arguments and found that CALM was not bound to protect fauna and nor did it have to act in accordance with the detail of the forest management plan. The EDO applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, but the High Court declined to hear the appeal: Bridgetown-Greenbushes Friends of the Forest Inc v Executive Director of the Department of Conservation & Land Management (1997) 18 WAR 126

The EDO represented the Denmark Environment Centre (Inc) (DEC) in legal action about whether the DEC could raise environmental objections to an application by Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd to mine an area adjacent to D’Entrecasteaux National Park. The EDO successfully argued before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that the DEC, and indeed any person, could raise environmental objections to mining leases before the Mining Warden: Calder Re; Ex parte Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd - (1998) 20 WAR 343

The EDO represented Walpole conservationist Donna Selby when she was convicted of entering a “temporary control area” (TCA) as part of a protest against the logging of Sharpe forest. The EDO successfully argued before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that the Minister for the Environment had not declared the TCA in a legally valid way, and therefore that Ms Selby’s conviction should be overturned: Selby v Pennings (1998) 19 WAR 520

The EDO represented the Hazelmere Progress Association (Inc) in a case concerning a proposed brickworks in Midland. The company who proposed to establish the brickworks commenced the case when the Shire of Swan decided that the brickworks could not be built because it would be a “noxious industry” under the Shire of Swan Town Planning Scheme. The EDO successfully argued before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that the Hazelmere Progress Association should be allowed to intervene in the case, and that the Shire of Swan’s original decision was correct: Shire of Swan, Re; Ex parte Saracen Properties Pty Ltd - (1999) 105 LGERA 343

The EDO represented the Serpentine-Jarrahdale Residents and Ratepayers Association (Inc) in a case about whether the Minister for Mines could issue mining leases even though the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) had not done an environmental impact assessment of the proposed mines. The case was specifically concerned with mining leases which the Minister for Mines had granted despite a recommendation by the Mining Warden that significant areas of bushland and wetland should be excluded from the leases. The EDO successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the Minister was required to refer the mining proposal to the EPA for environmental impact assessment before granting the mining leases: Serpentine-Jarrahdale Ratepayers and Residents Assoc Inc v Minister for Mines - [2001] WASC 203

The EDO represented the Avon Valley Environmental Society in an application to the Information Commissioner for documents relating to a land clearing proposal in the Whealtbelt. In 1998, the then Minister for Primary Industries upheld an appeal by a landowner against an order that certain land could not be cleared. Under the relevant legislation, the Minister was required to take the advice of a committee before deciding an appeal. The EDO successfully argued that the copy of the committee’s report should be released given the strong public interest in ensuring that Ministerial decision making processes on important environmental matters be open and transparent.

The EDO represented the Leeuwin Conservation Group (Inc) in a case about the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC)’s decision to approve a subdivision of private land at Gnarabup, near Margaret River. The EDO successfully argued before the Full Court of the Supreme Court found that the WAPC’s decision was unlawful. However, the Court did not overturn the subdivision decision because it also found that, 1) the decision was illegal on a technicality only, 2) the Group did not have “standing” (a sufficient legal interest) in the proceedings, and 3) the balance of convenience favoured the owner of the land (the Intervenor in the Court action): Western Australian Planning Commission, Re; Ex parte Leeuwin Conservation Group Inc [2002] WASCA 150

If you would like a copy of these cases, or simply to find out more about them, please contact us.