16 AusTRAlIAN QuARTeRlY OCT–DEC 2017
iMAGE: © Richard ling-FlickrFar from being found to be frivolous and vexatious, the concerns of
the landholders were substantiated to the degree the Court issued
its first ever recommendation of outright refusal of a mine.
unDER-MInInG PuBLIC TRuST – ThE RhETORIC Of LAwfAREThese findings are a resounding ‘No’
to the question of whether community
objections brought to the land Court in
mining matters have been frivolous or
vexatious.
on the contrary, the land Court has
on occasion found an environmental
objector to be acting in the public
interest, motivated solely by environ-
mental or community concerns and
clarifying important principles of law.^19
A timely example is the recent
decision in New Acland Coal Pty Ltd
v Ashman & Ors and Chief Executive,
Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection (No. 4) [2017] QlC
24 (currently under judicial review).
The objection by local landholders was
described by those in industry as ‘green
lawfare’,^20 yet far from being found to be
frivolous and vexatious, the concerns of
the landholders were substantiated to
the degree the Court issued its first ever
recommendation of outright refusal of a
mine following a contested hearing.
In particular the land Court found:
It is beyond doubt that the
mining proposed by NAC [New
Acland Coal] in revised Stage 3 will
cause disruptions to aquifers in the
Acland region which will have an
impact on nearby landholders, even
though the state of the groundwater
evidence is such, and the modelling
in my view so imprecise, that the
actual impact likely to occur to those