Friends of the Gelorup Corridor Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water

In the case of Friends of the Gelorup Corridor Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water, the primary issue was the Minister’s decision to approve a project that involved vegetation clearing, which potentially impacted listed threatened species and ecological communities. The applicant, Friends of the Gelorup Corridor Inc, sought judicial review of the Minister’s decision, arguing that the conditions imposed on the approval did not effectively evaluate the substantial environmental impact as required by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). The applicant also contended that the Minister failed to properly consider the precautionary principle, which mandates that lack of full scientific certainty should not prevent measures to prevent environmental degradation where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage.

The court had to determine whether the imposed conditions had the effect of delaying the substantial evaluation required by the Act and whether the Minister had considered the precautionary principle in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court analysed the statutory provisions concerning the Minister’s obligations, including those related to imposing conditions on approvals and the requirement to consider the precautionary principle. The court examined the decision-making process and the documentation provided, focusing on whether the Minister had appropriately taken into account all necessary factors and information.

The court concluded that the grounds of appeal were not substantiated. It found that the Minister had appropriately considered the required factors and conditions, and had adhered to the precautionary principle. The court held that the conditions imposed did not undermine the requirement for a substantial evaluation of the environmental impact, and that the Minister had duly considered the precautionary principle. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the respondents as agreed or assessed, with provisions for parties to seek different orders regarding costs if desired.