Bailey v Director General, Department of Natural Resources (formerly known as Department of Land and Water Conservation)

In the case of Bailey v Director General, Department of Natural Resources, the plaintiffs sought to hold the Director General accountable for their involvement in the prosecution of the plaintiffs for the illegal clearing of native vegetation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiffs argued that the institution and maintenance of criminal proceedings against them were malicious and without reasonable and probable cause, amounting to misfeasance in public office. They further contended that the Director General negligently misrepresented facts to the Land and Environment Court and interfered in their trade or business. The plaintiffs sought damages for these alleged wrongs, as well as for the loss of their property.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the prosecution of the plaintiffs was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause. Secondly, whether the Director General's actions amounted to misfeasance in public office, negligent misrepresentation, and interference in trade or business. Thirdly, whether the plaintiffs were exempt from the need to obtain development consent prior to clearing native vegetation. Fourthly, whether the clearing was part of "designated development" under section 12(f) of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997. Fifthly, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the "rural structures" or "farm dam exemption." Lastly, whether there was any valid or conforming application under Part 8 of the Water Act 1912.

The court found that the Director General's actions were not malicious and that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. The plaintiffs' claims for misfeasance in public office, negligent misrepresentation, and interference in trade or business were dismissed. The court held that the plaintiffs were not exempt from the need to obtain development consent for the clearing of native vegetation, and that the clearing did not constitute "designated development" under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to rely on the "rural structures" or "farm dam exemption," and there was no valid or conforming application under the Water Act 1912. Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed in their entirety.

The court made no orders for costs against the plaintiffs, recognising the public importance of the issues raised in the case.