Latest cases on standing

On 23 February 2018, Justice Bowskill delivered judgment in two recent applications for statements of reasons under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (JR Act) by the environmental organisation, Lock the Gate Alliance (LTGA), for decisions in relation to the Blair Athol mine.

LTGA applied for a statement of reasons:

• for a decision giving indicative approval for the transfer of a mining lease (Lock the Gate Alliance Ltd v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines [2018] QSC 21); and
• for a decision concerning the amount and form of financial assurance required under a condition of the mine’s environmental authority (Lock the Gate Alliance Ltd v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines [2018] QSC 22).

Under the JR Act, a prerequisite to obtaining a statement of reasons is that a person is ‘aggrieved’ by a decision to which the Act applies. That, in turn, requires an analysis of whether a person’s interests are ‘adversely affected’ by a decision. The interest required to obtain relief is also referred to as ‘standing’.

Justice Bowskill held that the starting point for consideration of the rules as to standing is the High Court’s decision in Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 (ACF). Her Honour emphasised that there is a requirement for an applicant to identify an interest, beyond that of an ordinary member of the public, which is affected in a practical way.

Her Honour considered LTGA’s identified interests. These included LTGA’s contended special interest in the rehabilitation of mine sites and preparation of studies and reports into rehabilitation. It was found that LTGA had not, on the evidence before the Court, shown that it had a special interest in the subject matter of the two decisions. Her Honour held that even if the contended special interests of LTGA were accepted, it had not established that the decisions had any particular adverse effect on it above any other member of the community.

The applications were dismissed.

These decisions demonstrate that despite legislative developments since 1980, the case law in standing in Australia continues to be dominated by ACF. Justice Bowskill acknowledged that there has been some liberalisation, not always consistently, in terms of the application of the principles of standing since ACF. However, there is no subsequent decision of the High Court that alters the principles set out in that case.