Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science

In Bond v Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Science, the applicant sought relief from the Supreme Court of Queensland in relation to an environmental protection order (EPO) issued against him as a related person of Linc Energy Limited. The primary judge had denied the applicant's application to stay the operation of the EPO pending the final resolution of criminal proceedings against him. The applicant appealed the decision of the primary judge to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge's decision to refuse a stay was infected with legal error and whether substantial injustice would arise unless leave to appeal was granted. Additionally, the court considered whether the EPO should be stayed pending the final resolution of the criminal prosecution.

The court found that the applicant had not established any specific errors in the primary judge's decision to refuse a stay of the EPO pending the final resolution of the appeal. The applicant's evidence and arguments concerning the potential overlap between the criminal prosecution and the appeal had differed markedly between the hearings. The court held that the primary judge did not err in finding that the applicant should establish afresh that the new stay should be granted. The court also noted that the failure to grant the stay would not involve serious or irreversible damage to the applicant.

Ultimately, the court granted leave to appeal against the orders made on 15 June 2018, allowed the appeal, set aside those orders to the extent described, and ordered that the applicant's appeal in the Planning and Environment Court be stayed pending the final resolution of the criminal prosecution. The application for leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the parties were granted leave to make submissions on costs within 14 days of the date on which the reasons for judgment were published.