SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Lang v Westside Corporation Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 190
PARTIES:
MERVYN KEITH LANG AND MARGARET LANG
(applicants)
v
WESTSIDE CORPORATION PTY LTD (ACN 117 145 516)
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BS 3915 of 2024
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
DELIVERED ON:
26 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
31 July 2024
JUDGE:
Bowskill CJ
ORDER:
Paragraph 1A of the amended originating application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – OIL – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicants are the owners of three rural properties on which they run cattle and those properties are within the area of a petroleum lease granted under the Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld) – where the respondent has authority to act for and on behalf of the tenement holders – where the applicants contend that the respondent has failed to prevent the introduction and spread of weeds on the properties – where the applicants are a “registrable biosecurity entity” under s 141 of the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld) and have implemented a biosecurity management plan for their properties – where s 94H of the Biosecurity Regulation 2016 (Qld) requires that a person entering, present at or leaving a management area for a biosecurity management plan must comply with the plan, unless, inter alia, the person is required or permitted, under an Act, to enter the management area – whether the respondent is required, by s 94H of the Biosecurity Regulation 2016, to comply with the applicants’ biosecurity management plan when entering and working on the applicants’ land – whether the provisions of the Petroleum Act 1923 and associated legislation permit the respondent, under an Act, to enter the applicants’ land
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 6, s 14A(1), sch 1
Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld), s 4(1), s 5, s 15, s 16, s 17, s 23,
s 25, s 26, s 28, s 134, s 141, s 151, s 503(2)(b)
Biosecurity Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 41A, s 41B, s 41C, s 47, s 94G, s 94G(1) s 94G(4), s 94H, s 94H(4)(c)
Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 (Qld), s 9, s 10, s 11, s 15A, s 15B, s 16, s 36, s 39, s 43, s 47, s 83(1)
Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Regulation 2016 (Qld), s 16, s 16(7)
Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld), s 44, s 51, s 74X, s 78L, s 78M,
s 79P, s79R, s 78S,s 79U, s 74APetroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld),
s 24A, s 497, s 499Council of the Shire of Sarina v Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal Pty Ltd [2002] 1 Qd R 548; [2001] QCA 146
Eckersley v Medical Board of Queensland [1998] 2 Qd R 453; [1996] QCA 528
Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99; [2005] HCA 7COUNSEL: P Hackett for the applicants
A Skoien for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Redmond & Redmond Lawyers for the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Lang v Westside Corporation Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] QSC 190
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether Westside Corporation is required to comply with the applicants’ biosecurity management plan under s 94H of the Biosecurity Regulation 2016, and whether the Petroleum Act and associated legislation allow Westside Corporation to enter the applicants’ land without complying with the plan. The court examined the statutory objectives and provisions of both the Petroleum Act and the Biosecurity Act, and the interplay between them. It was noted that the purposes of the Biosecurity Act include imposing a general obligation on persons to prevent or minimise the impact of biosecurity risks and regulating activities involving biosecurity matter or carriers. The court also considered the general biosecurity obligation under s 23 of the Biosecurity Act, which imposes a duty on persons to take all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise biosecurity risks, prevent or minimise adverse effects on biosecurity considerations, and minimise the likelihood of causing or limit the consequences of a biosecurity event.
The court concluded that the Petroleum Act does not explicitly exempt Westside Corporation from complying with the applicants’ biosecurity management plan when entering their land. The court held that the statutory objectives of the Petroleum Act do not override the general biosecurity obligations under the Biosecurity Act. The court found that Westside Corporation must comply with the applicants’ biosecurity management plan when entering and working on the applicants’ land. The Petroleum Act and associated legislation do not permit Westside Corporation to enter the applicants’ land without complying with the plan.
The court dismissed paragraph 1A of the amended originating application. The court held that the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought in that paragraph, which was that Westside Corporation be required to implement and comply with the applicants’ biosecurity management plan. The court found that the applicants had not established that Westside Corporation had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction and spread of weeds on their properties. The court noted that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims regarding the introduction and spread of weeds. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that Westside Corporation’s activities on their properties had caused or contributed to the spread of weeds.
Orders
Orders of the court
Paragraph 1A of the amended originating application is dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The ways in which the purposes of the Act are primarily to be achieved is articulated in s 5, and include the following:“(a) imposing a general obligation on persons to prevent or minimise the impact of biosecurity risks on human health, social amenity, the economy and the environment (each a biosecurity consideration); and(b)regulating activities involving biosecurity matter[5] or carriers;[6] and…(d)providing for flexible and timely ways of minimising and mitigating biosecurity risks;[7]…”[5]See the definition of “biosecurity matter” in s 15 of the Act.[6]A biosecurity “carrier” is defined in s 17 of the Act to mean any animal or plant or any other thing (a) capable of moving biosecurity matter attached to or contained in the animal, plant or thing [including a human] from one place to another, or (b) containing biosecurity matter that may attach to or enter another animal or plant or thing.[7]As defined in s 16 of the Act, a “biosecurity risk” is a risk of any adverse effect on a biosecurity consideration caused by, or likely to be caused by (a) biosecurity matter; or (b) dealing with biosecurity matter or a carrier; or (c) carrying out an activity relating to biosecurity matter or a carrier. The “general biosecurity obligation” arises under s 23 of the Act, which provides as follows:“23 What is a general biosecurity obligation(1)This section applies to a person who deals with biosecurity matter or a carrier, or carries out an activity, if the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the biosecurity matter, carrier or activity poses or is likely to pose a biosecurity risk.(2)The person has an obligation (a general biosecurity obligation) to take all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise the biosecurity risk.(3)Also, the person has an obligation (also a general biosecurity obligation)–(a) to prevent or minimise adverse effects on a biosecurity consideration of the person’s dealing with the biosecurity matter or carrier or carrying out the activity; and(b) to minimise the likelihood of causing a biosecurity event, or to limit the consequences of a biosecurity event caused, by dealing with the biosecurity matter or carrier or carrying out the activity; and(c) not to do or omit to do something if the person knows or ought reasonably to know that doing or omitting to do the thing may exacerbate the adverse effects, or potential adverse effects, of the biosecurity matter, carrier or activity on a biosecurity consideration.Examples of things that may exacerbate the adverse effects, or potential adverse effects, of biosecurity matter, a carrier or an activity–• failing to isolate an infected animal from a herd• failing to wash footwear before leaving a property on which anthrax is present• inappropriately disposing of leaf litter containing a plant virus or disease• failing to take reasonable steps to reduce contaminants in plants and animals, including, for example, by allowing designated animals (not including bees) to graze on land contaminated with heavy metals or by using water that may contain a contaminant to irrigate crops• failing to manage the impact of invasive plants and animals on a person’s land(4)For subsection (1), carrying out an activity includes entering, being present at or leaving a place where biosecurity matter or a carrier is present.