Jam Land Pty Ltd v Minister for the Environment

• Jurisdiction: Australia Federal only
• Judgment Date: 12 September 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] FCA 1058
• Date: 12 September 2022
• Court: Federal Court

Federal Court of Australia

Jam Land Pty Ltd v Minister for the Environment [2022] FCA 1058

File number:	NSD 1367 of 2021
Judgment of:	LEE J
Date of judgment:	12 September 2022
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of remediation determination under s 480D(1) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and subsequent determination to affirm the remediation determination pursuant to s 480J(2) – where respondent determined that applicant had taken action likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered ecological community in contravention of s 18(5) of the EPBC Act – whether ecological community validly listed per s 184 of EPBC Act – whether respondent’s delegates erred in law when making determinations under ss 480D and 480J of EPBC Act – whether remediation determination “specified” matters as required by s 480E(1) – application dismissed ; STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether s 184 of EPBC Act subject to implied condition of certainty – whether satisfaction of condition of certainty is a jurisdictional fact – survey of principles of statutory interpretation ; EVIDENCE – admissibility of expert evidence in judicial review – admissibility of expert evidence on questions of statutory interpretation
Legislation:	Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AB(1)(a) Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2006 (Cth) Sch 1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) Pt 17 Div 14B; ss 3(1)(a), 18, 18(5), 18(5)(b), 178, 181, 183, 184, 184(a), 194E(1), 194E(3)(b), 194H, 194H(1)(a), 266B(1)–(2), 480D(1), 480E(1), 480E(1)(b), 480E(2)(e), 480J, 480J(1)–(3), 480L(2), 480M, 528 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 191 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37P(2) Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 16.43 Explanatory Memorandum, Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2006 Bill (Cth) Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) s 23(1)
Cases cited:	Anvil Hill Project Watch Association Inc v Minister for Environment and Water Resources [2007] FCA 1480; (2007) 243 ALR 784 Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 Australasian Temperance & General Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Howe (1922) 31 CLR 290 Australian Retailers Association v Reserve Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 1707; (2005) 148 FCR 446 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 Comcare v Lilley [2013] FCAFC 121; (2013) 216 FCR 214 Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297 Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135 Gedeon v Commissioner of the New South Wales Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43; (2008) 236 CLR 120 Hogan v Australian Crime Commission [2010] HCA 21; (2010) 240 CLR 651 Jolly v Yorketown District Council (1968) 119 CLR 347 K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309 Life Insurance Co of Australia Ltd v Phillips (1925) 36 CLR 60 Mackenzie v Head, Transport for Victoria and Minister for Planning [2021] VSCA 100 Masson v Parsons [2019] HCA 21; (2019) 266 CLR 554 Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214 MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 95 ALJR 441 Nathanson v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 26 Provincial Insurance Australia Pty Ltd v Consolidated Wood Products Pty Ltd (1991) 25 NSWLR 541 Regional Express Holdings Ltd v Australian Federation of Air Pilots [2017] HCA 55; (2017) 262 CLR 456 Roberts v Attorney-General (Cth) [2022] FCA 574 Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 Sunland Group Ltd v Gold Coast City Council [2021] HCA 35; (2021) 394 ALR 385 Sydney Sea Planes Pty Ltd v Page [2021] NSWCA 204; (2021) 106 NSWLR 1 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 262 CLR 362 Television Corporation Ltd v Commonwealth (1963) 109 CLR 59 Tickner v Chapman (1995) 57 FCR 451 Uber BV v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 110; (2017) 247 FCR 462 Vanstone v Clark [2005] FCAFC 198; (2005) 147 FCR 299 VAW (Kurri Kurri) Pty Ltd v Scientific Committee (Established under s 127 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) [2003] NSWCA 297; (2003) 58 NSWLR 631 Wilson v Anderson [2002] HCA 29; (2002) 213 CLR 401
	Bates G, Environmental Law in Australia (LexisNexis, 10th ed, 2019) Herzfeld P and Prince T, Interpretation (Lawbook Co, 2nd ed, 2020) Thackway R and Cresswell I D (eds) An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia: a framework for establishing the national system of reserves (Australian Nature Conservation Agency, 1995)
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	89
Date of hearing:	28–29 July 2022
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr S Lloyd SC with Mr D Hume
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Lancaster SC with Ms R Francois and Ms E Dunlop
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

		NSD 1367 of 2021
BETWEEN:	JAM LAND PTY LTD Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Respondent

order made by:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	12 SEPTEMBER 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for judicial review be dismissed with costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LEE J:

A INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant, Jam Land Pty Ltd (Jam Land), seeks judicial review of two determinations made by delegates of the respondent (Minister). The first of those determinations concluded that Jam Land had taken action likely to have a significant impact on a “critically endangered ecological community”, in contravention of the civil penalty provision in s 18(5) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act). The second determination reaffirmed the first, following an application for reconsideration by Jam Land.

2. Each of the three grounds of review turns on the proper construction of the EPBC Act.

3. In brief, each...