Snowy Mountain Bush Users Group Inc v Minister for the Environment

In Snowy Mountain Bush Users Group Inc v Minister for the Environment, the plaintiff sought to challenge the amendment of the Kosciuszko National Park Wild Horse Heritage Management Plan, which allowed for the aerial shooting of wild horses in the Kosciuszko National Park. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Minister's decision was subject to judicial review and whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings.

The court had to decide whether the Minister's decision to approve aerial shooting in the Park was subject to review based on any reviewable error of law, including whether the Minister was provided with misleading or erroneous information that caused a jurisdictional error. The court found that the Minister was provided with all relevant information, including documents and animal welfare considerations, and that there was no jurisdictional error. The court also addressed the unreasonableness of the Minister's decision, applying the test of legal unreasonableness set out in Adelaide City Corporation v Common. The court held that the decision was not unreasonable, as it was not the role of the Minister to decide on operational matters and that aerial shooting would comply with animal welfare legislation.

Further, the court considered whether the method of aerial shooting being deployed was inconsistent with requirements to accord with national standard operating procedures, animal welfare assessments and animal welfare legislation. The court found that there was no inconsistency, as the national standard operating procedures did not prohibit aerial shooting and an animal welfare assessment had been carried out. Finally, the court considered whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings, and held that the plaintiff had a special interest in the matter and was a major stakeholder in the Park.

The court found that the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings and granted an extension of time for the claims, as the matter was of significant public interest and raised sufficiently arguable issues, and there was little to no prejudice to the defendants.