JUDGES:	NIALL, EMERTON and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 and 25 May 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 July 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 194
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Warburton Environment Inc v VicForests (No 3) [2021] VSC 35 (Garde J)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal – Whether inadequate reasons given – Whether judge erred in not granting broader relief – Whether judge erred in not taking into account relevant considerations – Application for leave refused.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Standing – Standing as a preliminary question – Whether question of standing should be determined as a separate question and in advance of the trial of the proceeding – Application for leave refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Warburton in all proceedings	Mr J Korman	Oakwood Legal
For VicForests in all proceedings	Mr E Nekvapil with Ms M Narayan	Russell Kennedy

NIALL JA
EMERTON JA
KENNEDY JA:

Introduction

In the proceeding in which the present applications arise, the plaintiff, Warburton Environment Inc (‘Warburton’), seeks to restrain VicForests from undertaking certain forest harvest operations in the Central Highlands of Victoria. The plaintiff alleges that, unless restrained, VicForests will breach certain regulatory prescriptions that are designed to protect the Tree Geebung species (Persoonia arborea).

There have been many interlocutory skirmishes over a number of hearing days, most of which have been heard by Garde J. Presently before the Court are two applications for leave to appeal against interlocutory decisions of Garde J.

The first application for leave to appeal is brought by Warburton. Warburton contends that the judge failed to give adequate reasons for granting an injunction to restrain timber harvesting operations in ‘specified coupes’,[1] this form of restraint not being the form sought by Warburton. Warburton also contends that the judge erred in not granting broader relief extending the restraint to all ‘wet forest coupes’[2] in the Central Highlands of Victoria.
[1]Defined as coupes in which a Tree Geebung had been located by VicForests or the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (‘DELWP’).
[2]Defined below at [25].

The second application for leave to appeal is brought by VicForests.[3] It contends that the judge erred in failing to accede to its application that Warburton’s standing to bring the proceeding be determined as a separate question and in advance of the trial of the proceeding.
[3]The Application brought by VicForests is in the form of a Cross Appeal. In the event that a Cross Appeal was not the appropriate form of proceeding, VicForests also applied for an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal. As the Court has determined the Cross Appeal, it is unnecessary to deal with the application for an extension of time and it will be refused.

For the…

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.

Continue reading Warburton Environment Inc v VicForests

Details

AGLC: Warburton v VicForests [2021] VSCA 194
Case: [2021] VSCA 194
Decision Date: 9 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Warburton Environment Inc initiated legal proceedings against VicForests, seeking relief pertaining to alleged environmental harm caused by the latter's forestry activities. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Victoria. The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the judge provided adequate reasons for their decision, whether the judge erred by not granting broader relief, and whether the judge failed to consider relevant factors. Additionally, the court examined whether the question of standing should be determined separately and before the trial of the proceeding.

The court held that the judge provided sufficient reasons for their decision and did not err in not granting broader relief or omitting to consider relevant factors. The court emphasised that the decision to grant or deny relief is within the discretion of the primary judge, and the appellate court would only intervene if there was a clear error in the exercise of that discretion. The court also found that the issue of standing did not need to be determined as a separate question before the trial of the proceeding. The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be refused.

The court's decision resulted in the refusal of the application for leave to appeal, meaning that Warburton Environment Inc's appeal against the lower court's decision was not successful. The lower court's decision and findings on the merits of the case remained in place.

Orders