Coast and Country Association of Queensland Inc v Smith

The Coast and Country Association of Queensland Inc brought an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Land Court, the Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection, and the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. The Land Court had recommended that an application for a mining lease and an application for an environmental authority be rejected, with alternative recommendations that they be granted subject to conditions. These conditions deferred the resolution of certain matters to a separate approvals process under the Water Act 2000 (Qld). The applicant challenged the validity of the Land Court’s recommendations and the subsequent decisions of the EPA Minister and the MRA Minister. The court had to decide whether the Land Court had the power to make alternative recommendations and whether it had erred in law by failing to take into account certain considerations or by having regard to irrelevant considerations.

The court found that the Land Court had the power to make alternative recommendations, as the statutory provisions allowed for such recommendations. The court also found that the Land Court had not erred in law by making alternative recommendations that were conditional on a future approvals process under the Water Act. The court held that the Land Court was not required to be satisfied that the grant of a mining lease and the environmental authority met all statutory requirements, including that the proposed mining activity would produce a net benefit. The court further found that the Land Court had not erred in law by failing to take into account "scope 3 emissions" associated with the proposed mine and their effect on the environment, as these emissions were not relevant to the decision-making process. The court also held that the Land Court had not erred in law by having regard to the fact that the development of the proposed mine would not increase global greenhouse gas emissions, as this consideration was relevant to the decision-making process.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the second and third respondents. The court held that the decisions of the Land Court, the EPA Minister, and the MRA Minister were valid and should not be set aside.