Tipakalippa v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority

The applicant, Tipakalippa, sought an interlocutory injunction against the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) and the operator of a proposed offshore drilling project. The injunction was aimed at preventing the second respondent from proceeding with the drilling operations, pending the outcome of an application for judicial review against a decision of NOPSEMA to approve the drilling. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant’s delay in bringing the application and the absence of an undertaking as to damages should lead to the refusal of the injunction, whether Tipakalippa had established a prima facie case for the injunction, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction.

The court considered the applicant’s delay in bringing the application and the expedited hearing previously granted, which suggested a recognition of the urgency of the matter. Despite this, the court found that the delay and lack of an undertaking as to damages were significant factors. The court also weighed the substantial financial loss to the second respondent and the potential harm to First Nations' traditional activities and marine life, including totemic species, and the spiritual connection to sea country. Ultimately, the court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an injunction due to the significant financial impact on the second respondent and the absence of an undertaking as to damages, which the court considered a critical factor in this context.

The court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction, noting that while there was a prima facie case, the factors of delay, lack of an undertaking as to damages, and the substantial financial loss to the second respondent outweighed the potential harm to the applicant’s interests. The court reserved the respondents’ costs pending further orders. The dismissal of the application and the reservation of costs are in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.