JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 February 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 March 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	WOTCH v VicForests (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 99

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Interlocutory injunction — Whether serious question to be tried — Whether balance of convenience favours granting injunction — Timber harvesting of State forests — Whether bushfires affect application of Code of Practice — Threatened species of greater glider, powerful owl, sooty owl, smoky mouse and alpine tree frog — Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic) — Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) — Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (Vic) — Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2009] VSC 386 — Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests (2010) 30 VR 1 — MyEnvironment v VicForests [2012] VSC 91 — Friends of the Leadbeater’s Possum v VicForests (2018) 231 LGERA 75.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms KE Foley and Ms C Mintz	Environmental Justice Australia
For the Defendant	Mr IG Waller QC, Mr H Redd and Ms RV Howe	Baker McKenzie

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Procedural history.............................................................................................................................. 1

The parties........................................................................................................................................... 2

Summary of the applications and evidence.................................................................................. 3

The Victorian forest management regime..................................................................................... 5

The Code of Practice......................................................................................................................... 6
Management procedures and planning standards.......................................................................... 6
Forest Management Zones and Forest Management Plans............................................................ 7
Timber Release Plans....................................................................................................................... 7
Forest Management Areas............................................................................................................... 7

Bushfire response............................................................................................................................... 8

The threatened species...................................................................................................................... 9

State protection regime.................................................................................................................... 9
Federal protection regime............................................................................................................... 10
Greater glider................................................................................................................................. 10
Smoky mouse (aka konoom)........................................................................................................... 13
Sooty owl........................................................................................................................................ 14
Powerful owl.................................................................................................................................. 14
Alpine tree frog.............................................................................................................................. 15

Detections in the coupes................................................................................................................. 16

Defendant’s evidence...................................................................................................................... 18

Affidavit of Mr William Paul........................................................................................................ 18
Affidavits of Ms Ruizhu Jiang....................................................................................................... 20
Affidavit of Mr Andrew Prowse – correspondence between the defendant and Chief Conservation Regulator.............................................................................................................................................. 20

Serious question to be tried........................................................................................................... 22

Balance of convenience................................................................................................................... 31

Undertakings.................................................................................................................................... 34

Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 35

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, WOTCH,[1] brought this interlocutory injunction application to prevent the defendant, VicForests, from undertaking timber harvesting operations in 15 forest coupes in Victoria. The plaintiff submits that each of these coupes contains, or is likely to contain, threatened species, or habitat of threatened species, that have been affected by the devastating 2019/2020 bushfires.
[1]The acronym stands for ‘Wildlife of the Central Highlands’.

The relevant threatened species are: the greater glider, powerful owl, sooty owl, smoky mouse and alpine tree frog (‘the threatened species’).

In its statement of claim, the plaintiff alleges that it is unlawful for the defendant to harvest timber in coupes known to the defendant or the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (‘DELWP’) to contain or be likely to contain a species identified as threatened pursuant to the Flora and Fauna Guarantee…

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 WOTCH v VicForests (No 2)

Details

AGLC: WOTCH v VicForests (No 2) [2020] VSC 99
Case: [2020] VSC 99
Decision Date: 5 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of WOTCH v VicForests (No 2) involved an application by the Wildlife and Outdoors Tourism Council of Australia (WOTCH) for an interlocutory injunction to prevent VicForests, a state-owned entity, from carrying out timber harvesting in certain areas of the State forests of Victoria. The applicant argued that the proposed logging would pose significant risks to threatened species, including the greater glider, powerful owl, sooty owl, smoky mouse, and alpine tree frog. The dispute came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary legal issues were whether there was a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an injunction. The court had to consider whether the proposed timber harvesting would contravene environmental legislation, including the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic), the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic), and the Sustainable Forests (Timber) Act 2004 (Vic).

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests [2009] VSC 386, Environment East Gippsland Inc v VicForests (2010) 30 VR 1, MyEnvironment v VicForests [2012] VSC 91, and Friends of the Leadbeater’s Possum v VicForests (2018) 231 LGERA 75. It considered the potential harm to the threatened species, the impact of recent bushfires on the application of the Code of Practice, and the need to balance the rights of VicForests to carry out its operations against the need to protect the environment. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the potential harm to the threatened species and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, as the potential harm to the species outweighed the economic interests of VicForests.

In light of the findings, the Supreme Court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining VicForests from carrying out timber harvesting in the specified areas until the substantive proceedings were resolved. The court emphasised the importance of protecting threatened species and the need for strict adherence to environmental legislation. The decision underscores the courts' willingness to intervene in cases where there is a significant risk to the environment and the potential for serious harm to threatened species. The final orders of the court included the grant of the interlocutory injunction and directions for further proceedings to address the substantive issues in the case.

Orders