Roe v The Director General, Department of Environment and Conservation for the State of Western Australia [No 2]

The case involved Roe, the applicant, challenging the decision of the Director General, Department of Environment and Conservation for the State of Western Australia, the first respondent, and the Environmental Protection Authority, the second respondent. The dispute centred around the assessment of a proposal to designate land as a liquefied natural gas processing precinct and the subsequent granting of a clearing permit. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposal was a significant proposal or a strategic proposal under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), and whether the clearing permit was related to the proposal. Additionally, the court considered whether the applicant had a direct interest in the subject matter of the permit application and whether the required invitation to comment under section 51E of the Act was provided. The court also needed to determine if the officer formed an opinion that the applicant had a direct interest in the subject matter of the application.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) and the definitions of "significant proposal" and "strategic proposal." The court found that the proposal was partly a significant proposal and partly a strategic proposal. Furthermore, the court held that the clearing permit was related to the proposal as it was necessary for the possible construction of an access road to the gas processing precinct. The court also found that the applicant did not have a direct interest in the subject matter of the permit application, and that the invitation to comment was not required in this instance. The court concluded that the officer did not form an opinion that the applicant had a direct interest in the subject matter of the application.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia set aside the decision of the Director General and the Environmental Protection Authority and remitted the matter to the Authority for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court also ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceeding.