WOTCH v VicForests (No 3) - [2020] VSC 220

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

VALUATION, COMPENSATION AND PLANNING LIST

S ECI 2020 00373

WOTCH INC	Plaintiff
v
VICFORESTS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 April 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	WOTCH v VicForests (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 220

---

INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION — Whether serious question to be tried — Whether balance of convenience favours granting injunction — Where interlocutory injunction previously granted in relation to different coupes: WOTCH v VicForests (No 2) [2020] VSC 99 — Bridgetown/Greenbushes Friends of the Forest Inc v Executive Director of Conservation and Land Management (1997) 18 WAR 102.

---

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

HER HONOUR:

On 5 March 2020, the Court granted an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from undertaking timber harvesting operations in 13 coupes in Victoria pending the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s case (‘WOTCH (No 2)’).[1] The evidence, submissions and findings in those reasons are not repeated here.
[1]WOTCH v VicForests (No 2) [2020] VSC 99 (‘WOTCH (No 2)’).

The plaintiff has filed two further summonses:

(a) On 19 March 2020, the plaintiff filed a summons seeking an interlocutory injunction in relation to an additional ten coupes; and

(b) On 24 March 2020, the plaintiff filed a summons seeking an interlocutory injunction in relation to an additional three coupes.

The plaintiff therefore seeks interlocutory injunctive relief over 13 coupes (‘the subject coupes’) additional to the 13 coupes the subject of WOTCH (No 2). The injunction is sought on the same bases as in WOTCH (No 2).

At the hearing, the Court granted interim injunctions in relation to the subject coupes pending determination of the interlocutory injunction applications.

The subject coupes

The subject coupes are all identified on the Timber Release Plan dated December 2019 and published by the defendant. They are named as follows: Ezard, Fergana, Stimpy, Nine Miles High, Ruprecht, Zinger, Turkey Feet, Bauble, Facet, Tenderloin, Magellan, Wanderlust, and Monster. The latter three were those the subject of the 24 March 2020 summons.

One of the subject coupes is in the Benalla-Mansfield forest management area and the other 12 are in the Central Highlands.

Plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff submits that the subject coupes all fall within the subject matter of the plaintiff’s statement of claim filed on 5 February 2020, being:

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 Act 1988 (‘FFG Act’) and affected by the recent bushfires, or habitat of such species.

The plaintiff submits that the defendant either has been conducting or is proposing to imminently conduct harvesting…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: WOTCH v VicForests (No 3) [2020] VSC 220
Case: [2020] VSC 220
Decision Date: 29 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, WOTCH, sought an interlocutory injunction against VicForests, the respondent, to prevent logging in certain areas of native forest. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants argued that the logging would cause serious harm to the environment and their interests, while the respondent contended that the logging was necessary for economic reasons and was being conducted in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.
The court was required to determine whether a serious question was being tried, whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, and whether the previous interlocutory injunction granted in relation to different coupes was relevant to the current application. The court considered the relevant environmental laws and regulations, as well as the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that a serious question was being tried and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also found that the previous interlocutory injunction was relevant to the current application, as it demonstrated a pattern of conduct by the respondent that raised concerns about its compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
The court granted the interlocutory injunction, preventing the respondent from logging in the specified areas until the matter was finally determined. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the environment and the need for the respondent to comply with relevant laws and regulations. The case highlights the role of the courts in balancing competing interests and the importance of environmental protection.

Orders