Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (No 2)

Tipakalippa and other traditional owners of the Tiwi Islands sought judicial review of a decision by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to accept an environment plan for a drilling and completions campaign under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009. The applicants contended that they were not consulted about the environment plan, contrary to the requirements of the Regulations. The court considered whether NOPSEMA was reasonably satisfied that the environment plan met the criteria specified in the Regulations, including the consultation criteria. The court also examined whether NOPSEMA performed the task it was required to perform of considering whether the environment plan demonstrated that each relevant person was consulted, and whether NOPSEMA failed to consider material it was bound to consider. The court found that NOPSEMA's decision to accept the environment plan was flawed and was set aside. The court held that NOPSEMA had failed to consider relevant material and had not properly considered whether the consultation criteria in the Regulations had been met. The court also held that the admissibility of evidence on a judicial review application depends on the ground of review and the circumstances of the case. The court found that the additional evidence presented by the applicants was not relevant to the legal issues that needed to be determined in the case.

The court set aside the decision of NOPSEMA to accept the environment plan and reserved costs. The order was conditional on the respondent extending an undertaking provided to the court. The court held that the application for leave to amend should be refused as the interests of justice dictated. The court found that the additional evidence presented by the applicants was not relevant to the legal issues that needed to be determined in the case. The court held that the admissibility of evidence on a judicial review application depends on the ground of review and the circumstances of the case. The court held that the meaning of "interests or activities" in reg 11A(1)(d) was not in issue in the case.