Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd v Friends of the Earth Brisbane Co-Op Ltd (No. 2)

The matter before the Queensland Land Court was an application by Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd for costs against Friends of the Earth Brisbane Co-Op Ltd, which had unsuccessfully objected to mining lease applications and associated environmental authority. Friends of the Earth raised objections on environmental grounds, specifically citing climate change, and argued that the objector should not be liable for costs when unsuccessful. The court had to determine whether Friends of the Earth, as an environmental group, was liable for costs under section 34 of the Land Court Act 2000, and if so, whether it was appropriate to exercise that discretion in this case.

The court considered the objects, scope, and purpose of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and the Environmental Protection Act 1994, and whether Friends of the Earth's objections were raised in the public interest. The court held that objections lodged on environmental grounds were within the central focus of the Environmental Protection Act, and Friends of the Earth had adopted a public interest stance by lodging objections and participating in the hearing. The court found that Friends of the Earth's litigation fulfilled the criteria identified by the Australian Law Reform Commission as relevant to the question of whether the proceedings may be described as public interest proceedings. The court also noted that Friends of the Earth had no personal or financial interest in the outcome, and their only interest was in the protection of the environment and the community generally.

In exercising the discretion to award costs, the court considered various factors, including that Friends of the Earth were not successful in their objections, and that the outcome of a proceeding is a significant factor influencing the exercise of the discretion to award costs. However, the court held that the exercise of discretion should be in favour of Friends of the Earth, given their public interest stance and the absence of any distinction between the interest of a landowner and that of an environmental objector. The court concluded that Friends of the Earth's objections were raised in the public interest and that it was not appropriate to exercise the discretion to award costs against them.

ORDERS:
The application for costs is refused.