Youth Verdict v. Waratah Coal

The environmental groups Youth Verdict and Bimblebox Alliance Inc brought a suit against a proposed coal project in the Queensland Land Court. The plaintiffs argued that the mine's contribution to climate change infringes on their protections under the Queensland Human Rights Act. The coal project received federal and state approval but requires the assessment of the Queensland Land Court before the environmental authority can be issued.

Background

In 2019, Waratah Coal Party Ltd applied for a mining lease and environmental authority for the construction of a thermal coal mine in the Galilee Basin, the Galilee Coal Project. Landholders, along with environmental advocates, objected to the approval of the application. For the mining lease, they applied to the Minister for Natural Resources Mines and Energy while the Chief Executive for the Environmental Protection Agency would handle the environmental authority. Youth Verdict and Bimblebox Alliance filed suit on May 3, 2020, alleging that granting the mining lease and environmental authority would not be compatible with human rights, violating sections 58 and 59 of the 2019 Queensland Human Rights Act. Waratah Coal responded with the argument that the Court didn't have jurisdiction to consider human rights because there were no provisions in the Mineral Resources Act 1989 or the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

Section 58 of the Human Rights Act states a public entity cannot (a) "act or make a decision in a way that is not compatible with human rights"; or (b) "fail to give proper consideration to a human right relevant" when making a decision. Section 59 is known as the piggyback provision and states that a person may seek relief or remedy for activities under section 58 if the action is considered unlawful outside of section 58.

Relevant Law and Principles

• Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
  • Section 9
  • Section 10
  • Section 58
  • Section 59
• Mineral Resources Act 1989
• Environmental Protection Act 1994

Status

On August 28, 2020, the Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. In this decision, the judge also established that the Court does have jurisdiction, finding that the Court as a public entity is required "not to act or make a decision incompatible with human rights and it must "give proper consideration to a relevant human right". This means that even it was not a specifically human rights-based objection, the Court would be required to consider human rights in its ruling. The Court also agreed with the plaintiffs in that Section 59 allowed them to seek remedy and thus they have the standing to litigate. The Land Court has yet to consider the substantive merits of the objections, including the alleged link between climate change impacts and human rights.

Takeaways

This case joins many other Youth Lawsuits, with young people bringing action against governments or corporations for failure to act on climate change. There are also a number of other Australian cases challenging government decisions relating to climate change impacts, such as the case seeking to prevent the Federal Environmental Minister from granting a coal mine extension. Cases like these show that climate litigation is an emerging concern for the mining sector and other industries tied to fossil fuels. Additionally, the decision is the first indication Court's approach to human rights objections to resource applications with the new Human Rights Act. There is a high chance of an increase in human rights-based objections to resource applications after this case.

Links

• Youth Verdict
• The Bimblebox Alliance
• Waratah Coal
• Dismissal Judgement