New Acland Coal Pty Ltd v Ashman (No 7)

In the case of New Acland Coal Pty Ltd v Ashman (No 7), the applicants sought to amend a mining lease and the associated environmental authority for a coal mine in Queensland. The applicants faced objections to their applications, leading to a mining objections hearing. The initial decision to refuse the applications was set aside on judicial review due to errors of law, and the matter was remitted to the Court constituted by a different Member to conduct a further hearing on limited issues. The key issues before the court included the jurisdiction of the court to conduct the remitted hearing, the two-stage balancing exercise required in such hearings, and the binding nature of findings from the first hearing on the remitted hearing. Additionally, the adequacy of noise limits in the draft environmental authority and whether revised noise conditions should apply to certain areas of the mine were also considered.

The court first addressed the jurisdictional question, confirming that it had the authority to conduct the remitted hearing. It clarified that while the function in conducting a mining objections hearing under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 requires a two-stage balancing exercise, the exercise of discretion by the Member conducting the remitted hearing was constrained by findings and conclusions of the Member who conducted the first hearing. The court also determined which statements from the first decision were binding on the Member conducting the remitted hearing, resolving disputes about their applicability.

Regarding the adequacy of the draft environmental authority's noise limits, the court concluded that they did not adequately regulate the noise impacts of the mine. It also found that some conditions should be imposed that are inconsistent with those stated by the Coordinator-General under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. The court affirmed its power to make recommendations that are conditional on changes to the conditions stated by the Coordinator-General, and it made conditional recommendations that the applications be granted, with an alternative recommendation that they be refused.

The court's final orders and recommendations are detailed in Appendix A to its reasons, which provide the specific terms and conditions under which the applications are to be granted or refused.