O'Connor and O'Connor v Arrow (Daandine) Pty Ltd

In the case of O’Connor and O’Connor v Arrow (Daandine) Pty Ltd, the applicants, the O’Connors, sought to challenge the legality of the respondent’s actions in constructing a pipeline on their land for the purpose of transporting treated water produced as a by-product of coal seam gas exploration. The respondent, Arrow (Daandine) Pty Ltd, is a subsidiary of Arrow Energy Ltd, which holds a petroleum lease over an area in the Surat Basin. The dispute arose when Arrow (Daandine) commenced construction of a pipeline for the transportation of treated water, a by-product of coal seam gas exploration, across the O’Connors’ land.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the construction of the pipeline constituted an “authorised activity” under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld), and whether the respondent’s entry on the O’Connors’ land for the purpose of constructing the pipeline was lawful given the failure to provide an entry notice as required by s 497 of the Act. The court had to determine the scope of authorised activities permitted under the lease and the necessity of providing an entry notice to the landholders before entering their property to carry out such activities.

The court found that the construction of the pipeline for the transportation of treated water was an authorised activity under the lease and the provisions of the Act. It held that the environmental authority granted under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) encompassed the construction and operation of infrastructure necessary to facilitate the beneficial use of associated water, including the pipeline in question. Furthermore, the court ruled that the respondent's entry on the O’Connors’ land was not unlawful due to the absence of an entry notice, as the construction of the pipeline was deemed an authorised activity. The court concluded that the respondent had acted within the scope of the authorisation granted by the lease and the environmental authority.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the O’Connors’ claims. The final orders of the court were that the construction of the treated water pipeline constituted an authorised activity under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld), and that the respondent's entry on the O’Connors’ land for the purpose of constructing the pipeline was lawful. The O’Connors’ application was dismissed in its entirety, with no orders for costs.