Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v Department of Environment and Conservation

In the case of Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd v Department of Environment and Conservation, Eclipse Resources sought to challenge the CEO's decision to refuse amendments to its environmental licences, specifically concerning the boundaries and areas of its prescribed premises. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Eclipse Resources argued that the CEO had failed to exercise procedural fairness and had considered irrelevant factors in making the decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the CEO had breached procedural fairness by not providing notice of his intention to issue a new licence without an amendment to the licence area and whether the CEO had taken into account irrelevant considerations or failed to consider relevant ones in refusing to amend the licence areas. The court needed to determine if these decisions constituted a jurisdictional error.

The court found that there was no indication in the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) that Parliament intended the CEO to be relieved of any obligation to accord procedural fairness to an applicant for a licence or an amendment to a licence. The CEO's decision was made after Eclipse Resources had applied to amend the existing licence, and it was plain that the CEO had taken that application into consideration. The court concluded that Eclipse Resources should be permitted to seek final relief on the ground that the CEO denied procedural fairness, subject to clarifying what steps were allegedly omitted. The court also noted that there was scant evidence that the use of the land lying outside the proposed amended licence areas would be adversely affected by the refusal to amend the licence areas.

The court found that the CEO's consideration of the plans submitted in support of the applications to amend did not relate to any specific licence condition and so no purpose would be served by including them in the licences to identify the prescribed premises. The CEO's decision was not a jurisdictional error as it did not take into account irrelevant considerations or fail to consider relevant ones.