The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) sought to challenge a decision of the Commonwealth to approve a development by Iwasaki Sangyo to build and operate a tourist resort at Farnborough in central Queensland (and a related decision to approve certain foreign exchange transactions necessary to pay for the construction). The Commonwealth responded that ACF had no interest in the decisions and therefore could not challenge them.

The case was initially heard by a single judge of the High Court, Justice Aickin, who held that the ACF did not have standing to challenge the decision. The ACF appealed to the Full Court of the High Court. On appeal, the High Court upheld the decision of Justice Aickin 3:1 (Justices Gibbs, Stephen and Mason in the majority, Justice Murphy dissenting) finding that the ACF did not have standing.

The Iwasaki Sangyo Company (Australia) Pty. Ltd. ('Iwasaki') proposed to develop and operate a tourist resort near Farnborough in central Queensland. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) (the Act), and the regulations under that Act, required the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) on certain developments.

In early January 1978, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development required Iwasaki to prepare an EIS on the impact of the proposed development. Iwasaki delivered a draft EIS in late June. In late July, the ACF made comments on the draft EIS. On 26 July and 9 August, the ACF wrote to the Minister requesting that he inform them of what actions were taken, or would be taken, to address the environmental impact of the proposed development. The Minister did not respond to these requests until 11 September. Meanwhile, around 30 July, the Minister approved the development. On 29 August, Iwasaki delivered a final EIS.

The ACF sought a declaration that the decisions of the Minister was invalid for a number of reasons:

1. Because of the delay by the Minister in responding to ACF's requests;
2. Because the draft EIS did not comply with the requirements of the regulations under the Act;
3. Because Iwasaki did not prepare a final EIS that took into account ACF's comments and did not do so until after the decision;
4. Because the decision was not made in accordance with the Act, particularly because there was no valid EIS.

The Commonwealth challenged the right of the ACF to seek the declarations, arguing that the ACF had no interest in the proceedings and was not entitled to sue them.

By majority (3:1), the High Court held that ACF did not have the right to challenge the decision (i.e. they found that the ACF did not have standing).

The Court followed UK authority stating that a person must have a 'special interest' in the subject matter of a decision before they will be entitled to challenge that decision. What amounts to a special interest is 'infinitely various', but would include damage to proprietary, economic, or perhaps social and political interests. The Court held, however, that a 'mere intellectual or emotional concern' or the 'satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a contest' was not a sufficient interest. In that case, it was held that the ACF's interest in the environment was a 'mere intellectual or emotional concern'.

Formally, it remains the position that a 'mere intellectual or emotional concern' with a matter is insufficient to grant standing. Subsequent cases, however, have interpreted this phrase narrowly and have been prepared to find the environmental groups have a 'special interest' in the subject matter of proceedings and, hence, were entitled to seek judicial review. See, for example, North Coast Environment Council Inc. v Minister for Resources or Environment East Gippsland Inc. v VicForests.

In addition, some legislation has conferred broader standing rights than those granted by the common law. For example, under s 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), persons and groups are automatically granted standing to seek review of government decisions if they have 'engaged in a series of activities in Australia or an external Territory for protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment'. The consequence of such a provision is to override the decision in ACF v Commonwealth in relation to decisions under that Act.

• The full decision is available on Austlii

• This case on Austlii Law Cite