Jimbelung v Beaudesert Shire Council (Tamborine planning appeal)
Jimbelung Pty Ltd v. Beaudesert Shire Council & Ors [2005] QPEC 25
Jimbelung Pty Ltd v. Beaudesert Shire Council & Ors [2005] QPEC 32
EDO Qld acted for Friends of Mount Tamborine Association to argue that an appeal by a developer against a refusal for a development on Mount Tamborine should not be permitted to proceed due to a lapse of years since the appeal was initiated. Although the Court ruled the appeal could proceed, some court costs were awarded to our client.
Hemmant & Tingalpa Action Group v DPI (Marine plants fisheries appeal)
Hemmant and Tingalpa Action Group and WPSQ Bayside Branch Inc. v Department of Primary Industries and Master Butchers Limited FT464- 2002
EDO Qld acted for the Hemmant and Tingalpa Action Group in a successful appeal in the Fisheries Tribunal against a permit for destruction of marine plants. However, the decision was then undermined by the Tribunal deciding that a permit should nonetheless be granted.
Friends of Springbrook Alliance v Gold Coast City Council (Springbrook Cabins planning appeal)
Friends of Springbrook Alliance Incorporated & Ors v Council of the
City of Gold Coast & Anor [2003] QPEC 014
Friends of Springbrook Alliance Incorporated & Ors v Council of the
City of Gold Coast & Anor [2005] QPELR 148
EDO Qld acted for environmentalists and residents to challenge a tourist development approved for an ecologically sensitive part of the Gold Coast Hinterland near World Heritage-listed Springbrook National Park. Although the appeal was dismissed, it led to substantial improvements in the proposed development.
The case demonstrated the value of legal action as a way of improving development outcomes because of opportunities afforded to obtain information and for negotiation.
Armstrong v DPI (Paradise Dam Fisheries Tribunal appeal)
Armstrong & Joss v Department of Primary Industries & Burnett Water Pty Ltd [2003] FT 515
EDO Qld acted for lungfish expert Professor Jean Joss and Graeme Armstrong in an appeal to the Fisheries Tribunal regarding a potential preliminary approval for a fishway for Paradise Dam on the Burnett River. Our clients had been denied information about the status of the approval. The appeal clarified that the fishway design had not yet been finalised nor a permit granted, so there was no capacity to appeal an approval. The appeal was successfully settled with a commitment given that Professor Joss would be given opportunity to be briefed on the design of the fishway.
Solicitors: Jo-Anne Bragg, Larissa Waters
Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council v Burnett Water (Paradise Dam case)
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1900
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd
(corrigendum 15 December 2008) [2008] FCA 1900)
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 237
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 540
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 4) [2009] FCA 1013
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 5) [2009] FCA 1320
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 6) [2009] FCA 1363
Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 7) [2009] FCA 1376
Represented by EDO Qld, the Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council (WBBCC) sought to compel Burnett Water, the owner and operator of the Paradise Dam on the Burnett River, to abide by a condition of its approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) relevant to lungfish.
WBBCC sought a declaration under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and an injunction under the EPBC Act to restrain an alleged contravention by Burnett Water. This was the first case to focus on compliance with approval conditions under the EPBC Act. WBBCC received a grant of Commonwealth public interest test case funding, the first given for an environmental case in over a decade, in recognition of the important public interest elements in the case.
WPSQ Bayside v Redland Shire Council (Redland koala planning appeal)
The Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Bayside Branch (Qld) Inc v. Redland Shire Council & Anor [2007] QPEC 1
In a case that protected important koala habitat in Southeast Queensland, EDO Qld acted for the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Bayside Branch (WPSQ Bayside Branch) to challenge approval of a residential subdivision.
WPSQ Bayside Branch appealed an approval and a preliminary approval by Redland Shire Council, in the Planning and Environment Court under the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The approved subdivision was for 94 lots and the preliminary approval for further lots in another part of the 69 hectare property.
Queensland Conservation Council v Xstrata Coal Queensland (Xstrata climate change case)
Re Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QLRT 33
Queensland Conservation Council Inc v Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QCA 338
In one of the first Australian cases addressing climate change, EDO Qld acted for Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) in a challenge to the expansion of a large coal mine operated by Xstrata Coal. An initial loss in the Land and Resources Tribunal was successfully appealed, but the Queensland Government enacted special legislation to preempt the retrial.
Kirkham v Brisbane City Council (Yeronga Park planning appeal)
Kirkham v. Brisbane City Council [2007] QPEC 106
EDO Qld represented Ruth Woods in a successful planning appeal run jointly with other objectors to a development approval for a football field in a Brisbane park. This case is an example of what can be achieved by a motivated and well-organised community group.
In 2006 Brisbane City Council approved an application by the Souths Rugby Club to build a second rugby union field in Yeronga Memorial Park. Ruth Woods, a resident in Yeronga, along with members of the community group Friends of Yeronga Memorial Park, challenged the approval in the Planning and Environment Court under the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
The Wilderness Society v Minister for Environment (Gunns pulp mill case 1)
The Wilderness Society Inc. v Minister for Environment and Heritage ACD 12 of 2005
EDO Qld acted for The Wilderness Society (TWS) to challenge a decision by the Federal Environment Minister about matters that should be considered in his assessment of a proposed pulp mill in Tasmania. The case was discontinued when Gunns withdrew their application.
Queensland Conservation Council v Minister for Environment (Nathan Dam case)
Queensland Conservation Council Inc & WWF Australia v Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2003] FCA 1463
Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc & WWF Australia [2004] FCAFC 190
EDO Qld acted for the Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) and WWF Australia in a landmark case that compelled the Federal Environment Minister to consider the indirect impacts of a proposed dam. The case has considerably broadened the scope of federal environmental impact assessments under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).
Booth v Bosworth (Flying-fox case 1)
Booth v Bosworth [2000] FCA 1878
Booth v Bosworth & Anor [2001] FCA 1453
Bosworth v Booth [2004] FCA 1623
In the first legal action ever taken under Australia’s current federal environment laws, EDO Qld acted for conservationist Carol Booth in a case that halted the large-scale electrocution of spectacled flying-foxes on a lychee property in north Queensland and led to the end of government-permitted electrocution of flying-foxes.
This case in the Federal Court under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) demonstrated the great value of third party rights, defined various concepts in the EPBC Act and demonstrated that the Act could be used to regulate actions taken outside a World Heritage Area that were likely to have a significant impact on its values. Read More…
HSI v Minister for Environment (Flying-fox case 2)
Humane Society International Inc v Minister for the Environment & Heritage [2003] FCA 64
EDO Qld acted for Humane Society International in a successful case to ensure that the Federal Environment Minister did not abrogate his responsibility under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) to assess proposed actions likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance.
Booth v Frippery (Flying-fox case 3)
Booth v. Frippery Pty Ltd and Ors [2005] QPEC 95
Booth v Frippery P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 42
Booth v Frippery P/L & Ors [2006] QCA 74
Booth v Frippery Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QPEC 99
Frippery Pty Ltd & Ors v Booth (unreported, Queensland Court of Appeal No. 123/08)
Booth v. Frippery Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] QPEC 122
Frippery Pty Ltd v Booth [2008] FCA 514
EDO Qld acted for Carol Booth in the first legal action using new third party rights in Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992, achieving dismantlement of electric grids used to illegally kill flying-foxes on a lychee farm.
Involving a trial, an appeal, a second trial, an application for appeal, a contempt trial and an attempted suit in the Federal Court against EDO and our client, this case demonstrated that success in court can require considerable persistence. The appeal resulted in legal definition of a key concept in the Act.
Booth v Yardley (Flying-fox case 4)
Booth v. Yardley [2006] QPEC 116
Booth v. Yardley & Anor [2006] QPEC 119
Booth v. Yardley & Anor [2008] QPEC 5
Booth v. Yardley & Anor [2008] QPEC 100
EDO Qld acted for conservationist Carol Booth in an unusual case involving admissions by a fruit grower in the media that he had been electrocuting flying-foxes in defiance of a Queensland Government ban on this method of crop protection. Our client succeeded in obtaining a court order for the dismantlement of the electric grids, although it took two contempt proceedings to achieve the outcome.
In early 2006 Dick Yardley, a lychee grower from Mirriwinni in North Queensland, claimed in two media interviews that he had electrocuted 1100 spectacled flying-foxes since 2001 and that he did not believe the government’s decision to ban the use of electric grids for crop protection was valid.
Mirbelia Street Action Group v Brisbane City Council (Mirbelia bushland planning appeal)
Cordiner v Brisbane City Council and Greymouth Pty Ltd BD 6032 of 2001
Mirbelia Street Action Group v Brisbane City Council and Greymouth Pty Limited [2003] QPEC 43
EDO Qld acted for a local community group to appeal Council approval for a residential subdivision that would destroy urban bushland. While the appeal was unsuccessful, it did achieve substantially improved conditions to protect vegetation and water quality.
In the first case, Ruth Cordiner, a member of the Mirbelia Street Action Group, appealed to the Planning and Environment Court under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 against the approval for a 32 lot residential subdivision on about 6 hectares of bushland in Kenmore, Brisbane. The case was adjourned when our client’s barrister pointed out a potentially serious defect in the two applications for the development: that each was possibly ‘piecemeal’ as neither could stand alone without the other. A new development application was subsequently made.
Stahira v Redland Shire Council (Wellington Point planning appeal)
Stariha v. Redland Shire Council & WPSQ Bayside [2002] QPEC 39
EDO Qld acted for Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland Bayside Branch (WPSQ Bayside) in a successful case that prevented a residential estate being built on koala habitat beside a wetland at Wellington Point. Wildlife Bayside joined as a co-respondent to the developer’s appeal. Joining as a co-respondent provides the opportunity for a community group to present evidence to the Court and keep pressure on the respondent (the local government in this case) to run a strong case.
Schneiders v Queensland Government (Fraser Island dingo case)
Schneiders v Queensland [2001] FCA 553
EDO Qld acted for conservationist Lyndon Schneiders to seek an injunction to prevent the Queensland Government from culling a substantial proportion of the dingo population on Fraser Island. The case was unsuccessful, but likely to have been instrumental in persuading the Queensland Government to cease the cull and carry out a review.
Read More…
Save Our Riverfront Bushland v Brisbane City Council (Riverfront bushland planning appeal)
Wingate Properties P/L & Anor v BCC & Ors [2001] QPE 005
Represented by EDO Qld, a local environment group successfully overturned an approval by Brisbane City Council for residential development of bushland at Seventeen Mile Rocks in Brisbane.
Save Our Riverfront Bushland (SORB) appealed in the Planning and Environment Court under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 the Council’s approval for up to 90 residential allotments proposed by Wingate Developments Pty Ltd and Queensland Cement Limited.
Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee v Brisbane City Council (Mott Creek corridor appeal)
Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee Inc. v. Brisbane City Council & Ray Sweeney
EDO Qld acted for a community group to challenge the approval by Brisbane City Council of a townhouse development with limited setback from Mott Creek, a tributary of Norman Creek. The Norman Creek Catchment Coordinating Committee had been rehabilitating the riparian vegetation.
Subscribe
EDO Qld releases regular bulletins and alerts to keep members and the public in touch with the latest developments in environmental and planning law and to inform the community of our activities.
To subscribe to our Bulletin free of charge, please enter your email address into the box below.
EDO Qld needs your help to continue to provide legal services to Queensland community groups and individuals seeking environmental justice.
