North Coast Environment Council Incorporated v Minister of Resources [1994] FCA 1556; (1994) 36 ALD 533 (1994) 55 FCR 492 (16 December 1994)

The NSW Minister for Resources had granted Sawmillers Exports Pty Ltd a licence to export wood chips. North Coast Environmental Council opposed the licence. It sued the Minister under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), demanding that the Minister disclose the reasons for granting the licence. However, only a ‘person aggrieved’ may sue under the ADJR Act. The issue was whether the North Coast was a person aggrieved – that is, whether North Coast had standing to sue.

Sackville J, sitting alone in the Federal Court, held that North Coast did have standing. His Honour attempted to distinguish the facts of this case from those of ACF v Cth.

The principle in ACF v Cth still stands: that a person must have a ‘special interest’ to sue, and a ‘mere intellectual or emotional concern’ is insufficient.

However, having an intellectual or emotional concern does not disqualify standing. Sackville J cited Onus v Alcoa, in which the High Court held that descendants of an Aboriginal people had standing to protect their relics. Stephen J stated that courts ‘reflect community values and beliefs, according greater weight to, and perceiving a closer proximity to a plaintiff in the case of some subject matters, than others.’ Consequently, there is no rigid test for determining standing.

The question was whether North Coast exhibited more than a mere intellectual or emotional concern.

North Coast had a special interest for five reasons.

1. North Coast is the peak environmental organisation in the region. Its regional activities suggest a closer concern than the ACF, which had national activities.
2. North Coast received Commonwealth funding, acknowledging its status as a ‘significant and responsible environmental organisation’.
3. The NSW government also recognised North Coast as a body that represents environmental interests, notably by appointing it to the Forestry Policy Advisory Committee.
4. North Coast had conducted other projects that received Commonwealth funding.
5. North Coast had made submissions on other forestry matters. While its opposition to the export licence does not itself give it a special interest, its long commitment to other forestry matters evidences a special interest.

Finding this special interest, Sackville J held that North Coast had standing to sue.

This case considers that there is no rigid test for standing. It seems that a long commitment to the environmental values under threat, as well as governmental recognition, might be enough to give an environmental group standing. Sackville J does not explain very clearly why ACF failed when North Coast succeeded; however, this case opens the door to environmental groups seeking to protect public environmental interests in courts.

• The full decision is available on Austlii

• Full text of Onus v Alcoa

• Australian Conservation Foundation v Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493, [1980] HCA 53.