Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor - [2025] QLC 5

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5

PARTIES:
Sungela Pty Ltd
ACN 665 234 739

(applicant)

Bowen Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd

ACN 002 806 831

(applicant)

v

Ellen Roberts (Lock the Gate Alliance)

(non-active objector)

Dr Coral Rowston

(non-active objector)

Christine Carlisle

(non-active objector)

FILE NO: MRA144-23

PROCEEDING: Hearing of an application for mining lease and objection under the Mineral Resources Act 1989

DELIVERED ON: 20 March 2025

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: 15 October 2024

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

PRESIDENT: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:
1. I recommend to the Honourable Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that MLA 700061 not be approved unless and until the applicants show real and significant progress towards mitigating their GHG emissions.

2. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide a copy of these reasons to the Honourable Minister administering the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

CATCHWORDS:
ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – Queensland – applications for mining lease – objections to applications – where objections raised issues regarding the assessment process for the environmental authorities, extent of environmental impacts, climate change and the public right and interests – where the objectors did not elect to be active in proceeding – where evidence is led by applicants only – where the objections concern climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, impacts to endangered and threatened species, groundwater and surface water impacts, cumulative impacts, and the rehabilitation of the impacted area – whether the Court should recommend the application for mining lease be approved

HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – Human Rights Act 2019 s 58 – where the Court is acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity – where public entities are required to properly consider human rights relevant to their decisions – where the Court has previously held that greenhouse gas emissions limit the right to life – where no evidence of the limitation upon the right to life was led by the parties.

Mineral Resources Act 1989

Land Court Act 2000

Aradon Pty Ltd, Re [2001] QLRT 35
BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation [2024] QLC 7
Hail Creek Coal Holdings Pty Ltd v Michelmore [2020] QLC 16
Kenneth James Willis, Re [2001] QLRT 29
Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Western Australia [2020] QSC 344
Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 338
Townsville City Council v Chief Executive, Department of Main Roads [2006] 1 Qd R 77
Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21
Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing (2013) 45 WAR 446

APPEARANCES: Not applicable

Sungela Pty Ltd and Bowen Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd operate the Ensham thermal coal mine in the western part of the Central Bowen Basin. Sungela is wholly owned by Sungela Holdings…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QLC 5
Decision Date: 20 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor involved applications for mining leases in Queensland, which were subject to objections from various parties. The objections raised significant concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed mining activities, including climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, impacts on endangered and threatened species, groundwater and surface water, cumulative impacts, and the rehabilitation of the impacted area. The objectors did not elect to participate actively in the proceedings, and the evidence presented was limited to that provided by the applicants. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the objections should prevent the approval of the mining lease applications and whether the court, acting in an administrative capacity, was required to consider human rights, particularly the right to life, in its decision-making process.

The court began by examining the statutory framework under which the mining lease applications were made, emphasizing the importance of the assessment process for environmental authorities. The court highlighted that objections raised by the public could potentially halt the approval process if not adequately addressed. It was noted that the objectors had raised several critical environmental concerns, and while they did not actively participate in the proceedings, their objections needed to be considered. The court also explored the implications of human rights legislation, particularly the requirement for public entities to consider relevant human rights in their decisions. Given the court's previous findings that greenhouse gas emissions could limit the right to life, the absence of evidence regarding the impact on this right was a significant consideration.

After carefully reviewing the evidence and the legal framework, the court concluded that the objections raised substantial concerns that warranted further investigation and mitigation efforts. The court recommended that the mining lease applications should not be approved unless the applicants could demonstrate significant progress in mitigating their greenhouse gas emissions. The court also directed that a copy of its reasons be provided to the Minister responsible for administering the Mineral Resources Act 1989. This recommendation aimed to balance the applicants' economic interests with the pressing environmental concerns raised by the objectors.

The court's final orders included a recommendation to the Minister that the mining lease applications not be approved without evidence of significant progress in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the court directed that its reasons be communicated to the Minister. This decision underscores the court's commitment to environmental protection and the need for applicants to address substantial environmental concerns as part of the mining lease approval process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I recommend to the Honourable Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that MLA 700061 not be approved unless and until the applicants show real and significant progress towards mitigating their GHG emissions.

2. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide a copy of these reasons to the Honourable Minister administering the Mineral Resources Act 1989.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5
PARTIES:	Sungela Pty Ltd ACN 665 234 739 (applicant) Bowen Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd ACN 002 806 831 (applicant)
v
Ellen Roberts (Lock the Gate Alliance) (non-active objector) Dr Coral Rowston (non-active objector) Christine Carlisle (non-active objector)
FILE NO:	MRA144-23
PROCEEDING:	Hearing of an application for mining lease and objection under the Mineral Resources Act 1989
DELIVERED ON:	20 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	15 October 2024
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
PRESIDENT:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDERS:	1. I recommend to the Honourable Minister responsible for the Mineral Resources Act 1989 that MLA 700061 not be approved unless and until the applicants show real and significant progress towards mitigating their GHG emissions. 2. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court to provide a copy of these reasons to the Honourable Minister administering the Mineral Resources Act 1989.
CATCHWORDS:	ENERGY AND RESOURCES – MINERALS – COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS – Queensland – applications for mining lease – objections to applications – where objections raised issues regarding the assessment process for the environmental authorities, extent of environmental impacts, climate change and the public right and interests – where the objectors did not elect to be active in proceeding – where evidence is led by applicants only – where the objections concern climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, impacts to endangered and threatened species, groundwater and surface water impacts, cumulative impacts, and the rehabilitation of the impacted area – whether the Court should recommend the application for mining lease be approved HUMAN RIGHTS – HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION – Human Rights Act 2019 s 58 – where the Court is acting as a public entity in an administrative capacity – where public entities are required to properly consider human rights relevant to their decisions – where the Court has previously held that greenhouse gas emissions limit the right to life – where no evidence of the limitation upon the right to life was led by the parties. Mineral Resources Act 1989 Land Court Act 2000 Aradon Pty Ltd, Re [2001] QLRT 35 BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation [2024] QLC 7 Hail Creek Coal Holdings Pty Ltd v Michelmore [2020] QLC 16 Kenneth James Willis, Re [2001] QLRT 29 Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352 Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Western Australia [2020] QSC 344 Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 338 Townsville City Council v Chief Executive, Department of Main Roads [2006] 1 Qd R 77 Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 Woolworths Ltd v Director of Liquor Licensing (2013) 45 WAR 446
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable