Cooper v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & ors

COURT OR TRIBUNAL

Federal Court of Australia

DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)

17/08/2023

LITIGATION TYPE

Project Approval - Mitigation

SUBJECT MATTER

Gas / Oil

REVIEW TYPE

Judicial review

SUMMARY

Mardudhunera Traditional Custodian Raelene Cooper, represented by the Environmental Defenders' Office, has filed a case in the Federal Court of Australia seeking judicial review of the NOPSEMA's decision to approve Woodside's application to carry out seismic blasting for the Scarborough Gas Project. Woodside said that they were ready to begin seismic blasting, despite objections from Traditional Custodians that they have not been consulted. Despite finding that Woodside’s consultation with First Nations stakeholders was inadequate, NOPSEMA gave approval for the testing on July 31. “Conditions were attached to the approval that further consultation needed to be carried out before commencement of the blasting. Ms Cooper argues that NOPSEMA cannot grant the approval until she has been properly consulted; and alternatively that Woodside cannot begin seismic testing until Woodside has consulted with her, as required under the conditions of Woodside’s approval from NOPSEMA”. On 14 September, an interim injunction was granted until 28 September and the hearing of the matter was brought forward to later in September.

On 28 September the Court held as follows: “For reasons which follow, NOPSEMA did not have statutory power to make the decision to accept the environment plan on the stated conditions in circumstances where it was not reasonably satisfied that the consultation required by reg 11A(g) of the Regulations had not been undertaken. Further, the basis identified by Woodside for refusal of the relief in the exercise of the Court's discretion has not been demonstrated to be a basis upon which the Court, acting in accordance with law, should refuse relief. It follows that Ms Cooper is entitled to the relief that she seeks based upon ground 1. It is not necessary to determine the question of standing in relation to ground 2.”

CASE DOCUMENTS

Environmental Defenders Office website
Court file
Interim injunction granted
News article
Cooper v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (No 2) [2023] FCA 1158