Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v. Youth Verdict Ltd

In the case of Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v. Youth Verdict Ltd, young people in Australia challenged, on human rights grounds, the applications submitted by Waratah Coal Pty Ltd for a new coal mine project. 

Case Information

Court: Queensland Land Court, Australia
Dissenting Judgement: No
Filing Date: 2020
Last Update: 2023
Status: Decided

ISSUES

The Land Court of Queensland, Australia, was asked to consider whether provisions in the State’s new Human Rights Act could be relied upon to successfully object to a proposed mining development.[1]

Since 2010, Waratah Coal Pty Ltd (the Applicant), a mining company, has been pushing plans to open a new thermal coal mine in the Galilee Basin, Queensland (Galilee Project). If approved, Waratah Coal intends to mine approximately 1.4 billion tonnes of coal from Galilee over the next 25 years.[2]

On 13 May 2020, an alliance of local environmental groups – Youth Verdict, The Bimblebox Alliance Inc., and others (the Objectors) – objected to the Galilee Project on the basis of its alleged interference with their human rights under Queensland’s newly enacted Human Rights Act [2019] (QHRA). Waratah Coal sought to have this objection dismissed for being outside the scope of the Land Court’s jurisdiction.

MATERIAL FACTS/BACKGROUND

Plans for the Galilee Project have been underway for over 10 years. Its most recent iteration seeks permission for two open cut pits and related infrastructure, including a rail network, port facility and preparation plants to process the 40 million tonnes of coal expected to pass through the project each year.[3] 

In Queensland, large mines require both State and Federal approval before construction can begin. The Galilee Project specifically requires three approvals to go ahead:

1. Approval under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act [1999] (EPBCA), granted in 2015 by the Commonwealth Environment Minister;[4]
2. A mining lease issued under the Mineral Resources Act [1989] (MRA), to be granted by the Minister for Natural Resources Mines and Energy;[5] and
3. A State environmental authority permit issued under the Environmental Protection Act [1994] (EPA), to be granted by the Chief Executive of the Department of Environment and Science.[6]

When objections are raised under either MRA or EPA, as in this case, the Land Court is obliged to assess the application and the objection, in order to make a recommendation to both the Minister for Natural Resources Mines and Energy and Chief Executive. That recommendation is persuasive, but not binding. As the Objectors rejected  both the MRA and EPA applications, the Court conducted both hearings together. 

On 1 January 2020, Queensland’s new Human Rights Act 2019 (QHRA) came into force, offering a legislative opportunity for the Objectors to challenge  the Galilee Project.[7] In this case, the Objectors cited s58(1) QHRA, which makes clear that public entities act unlawfully when (i) they act or make decisions that are incompatible with human rights; and (ii) if when making a decision, they fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right. For the Objectors, if the Court approved  the Galilee Project, it would represent an unlawful act by failing  to consider the impact such a large-scale fossil fuel project would have on human rights.[8]

The Queensland Land Court was asked to determine two key questions: (i) whether the Land Court is subject to the procedural and substantive limbs of s58(1) QHRA when making its recommendations under the EPA and MRA; and (ii) if caught by the scope of s58, whether the Objectors could successfully seek relief as provided for under s59 QHRA. 

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

1. Applicant’s Arguments

The substance of the Applicants’ objection is not engaged with here, because in this action Waratah Coal sought to have their arguments struck out on procedural grounds. Waratah Coal specifically asked the Court to use its declaratory power to confirm that the Applicants’ objections to the Galilee Project were beyond the Court’s jurisdiction.[9] 

Whilst all parties to the case accepted that the Land Court is a public entity for the purpose of hearing the applications and objections under the MRA and the EPA, Waratah Coal took issue with the interpretation of an ‘act’ or ‘decision’ under s58(1). Specifically, Waratah Coal submitted that the Court’s recommendation under MRA and EPA is not an ‘act’, nor is it ‘making a decision’ for the purposes of s58(1) QHRA – it is simply discharging a public function.[10] This would mean that the Court’s recommendation relating to the Galilee Project is not subject to s58(1) QHRA and does not need consider human rights in its evaluation. It would also strike out the Applicants’ objection.

Waratah Coal also asserted that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to evaluate the substantive consideration of human rights when making recommendations to the mining and environmental authorities. Waratah Coal pointed to the absence of any specific provisions permitting such consideration in the MRA and EPA as evidence that the Court could not consider human rights in the mining applications that come before it.[11]

Finally, Waratah Coal raised the issue of standing, asserting that the Applicants could not claim relief under s.59 QHRA because they were corporate entities, not “persons” as specified by the legislation.[12]

2. Objectors’ Arguments

In 2020, the Objectors formally opposed Waratah Coal’s application to proceed with the Galilee Project. They argued that the project challenges several human rights (such as their right to life, rights of children and right to culture) and therefore, under s58(1) of the QHRA, should be deemed unlawful.  granting the Galilee Project’s application would be incompatible with various human rights (such as their right to life, rights of children and right to culture) relating to its environmental impact and would therefore be unlawful under s58(1) QHRA.[13] Therefore, the Court should recommend that the application should not be granted. 

The Objectors argued that the Land Court acts in an administrative capacity for both types of applications and is therefore a public entity under the HR Act. Furthermore, they said that when the Court makes a recommendation, this  is an ‘act’ under s58(1) and thus falls under the scope of s58(1).[14] 

THE JUDGEMENT

The Court confirmed that the substantive requirement under s.58(1) QHRA is not to act or make a decision that is incompatible with human rights, and the procedural requirement is to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to that decision. The Court found that both requirements apply to its recommendations relating to mining and environmental applications, including any recommendation made on the Galilee Project.[15]

The majority of the judgement looks to dismiss Waratah Coal’s claim that the Court’s recommendations do not constitute an ‘act’ or ‘decision’ for the purposes of the QHRA. Instead, the Court favoured a broad interpretation of the word ‘decision’, finding compatibility with the purpose of the legislation – to protect and promote human rights in the State of Queensland – and no specific statutory language to qualify its limitation.[16] The Court also confirmed that the ordinary meaning of the word ‘act’ should be used when interpreting s58(1) QHRA in this context.[17] This was concluded, in part, due to the resemblance found between the function of a Court’s recommendation and a notice given by a public authority.[18] 

The Court also rejected Waratah Coal’s claim that its recommendations are substantively outside the scope of QHRA. The Court instead found that jurisdiction is established by s108(1) QHRA, which applies the Act to all statutory instruments, past and future.[19]

On whether the Objectors could receive relief under s.59 QHRA, the Court highlighted that the provision specifies that relief is available following an unlawful act under s.58(1). As the Court has not yet made its recommendation on the Galilee Project application, no claim for relief or remedy can be raised. The Court agreed with the Objectors that s.59 QHRA would only be engaged at the point of judicial review of the Court’s recommendation, not at this stage of proceedings.[20] The Court refused to comment on Waratah Coal’s argument regarding standing.[21]

The combination of the above findings resulted in the dismissal of Waratah Coal’s application to have the objections thrown out. The Court ruled that objections to Waratah’s mining plans should not be dismissed and neither would the Court make a declaration to that effect.[22] On the 25th of November 2022, the Court recommended the Minister for Environment to reject Waratah’s application for the environmental authority permit, and recommended the Minister for Mining and Resources to reject Waratah’s mining lease application.[23]

By Miles Crewe

Please find the full judgement and other relevant case documents here.

Last edited on 12 March 2025, with special thanks to the case editors Björn Lambrenos, Ellie Gold and Beatrijs Gelders.

REFERENCES
[1] Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors [2020] QLC 33 (the Judgement) available at: Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd [2020] QLC 33 – Queensland Land Court Caselaw (queenslandjudgments.com.au)[
2] Coordinator-General, Queensland State of Australia, Galilee Coal Project (Northern Export Facility): Evaluation report on the environmental impact statement (Queensland Government, 2013) p2, available at: https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/18064/galilee-coal-cg-report.pdf
[3] Queensland Government, Galilee Coal Project (Northern Export Facility) Project Overview (last accessed 25 August 2022) available at:  https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/coordinator-general/assessments-and-approvals/coordinated-projects/completed-projects/galilee-coal-project
[4] Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act [1999] (Federal) available at: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00777 
[5] Mineral Resources Act [1989] (QLD) available at: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1989-110
[6] Environmental Protection Act [1994] (QLD) available at: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1994-062
[7] Human Rights Act [2019] (QLD) available at: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2019-005
[8] See para 2 of the Judgement.
[9] See para 3 of the Judgement
[10] See paras 3, 5 and 44 of the Judgement
[11] See para 47 of the Judgement
[12] See para 5 and 88-89 of the Judgement
[13] For a summary of the Objectors’ arguments, please refer to paras 2, 63, 70, and 80-82 of the Judgement at footnote [1][14] See para 57 of the Judgement
[15] Paras 64, 77 and 92-93 of the Judgement
[16] Ibid.
[17] Paras 42-43 and 47 of the Judgement
[18] Paras 59-60 of the Judgement
[19] s.108(1) Human Rights Act [2019] (QLD); para of the Judgemen
t[20] Paras 80-87 and 94 of the Judgement
[21] Para 95 of the Judgement
[22] Para 96 of the Judgement
[23] Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) – [2022] QLC 21 available at: Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21 – Queensland Land Court Caselaw (queenslandjudgments.com.au)