I find it difficult , not having a legal background, to make a sound and reasoned comment on this latest judgement and the hearing in the High Court to which it relates.
The Oakey Alliance legal team ( EDO) seem to be acting pro bono but this was not made clear one way or the other in this hearing.
Mention is made by Her Honour of the possibility of funding from the Grata Fund. The website for this Fund shows the depth and breadth of the legal teams that stand with and behind this Fund. EDO among many others like Greenpeace ;The Legal Faculty at the University of NSW ;GetUP;Amnesty International ; Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and so forth.
Several times during the hearing and including in the Judgement reference is made as follows: "Mr King deposes to the membership of Oakey as comprising, “largely local farmers, graziers, veterinarians and concerned townspeople who share a common interest in seeing that the Stage 3 expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine be refused”.
These members are said to number about 60.
No where during the Hearing ,by either parties legal team or by Her Honour ,is mention made of the numbers of small shareholders in New Hope and Soul Pattinson . There are 5,691 shareholders in New Hope with less than 5,000 shares each . There are 20,320 shareholders in Soul with less than 5,000 shares each. Why don't these individuals matter? Why are these people seen as "bullies" ?
While both the Alliance and Her Honour commented on the fact that "concerned townspeople" don't want the expansion to go ahead , no mention was made of the social and economic impact on all townspeople of the failure of the expansion to get approval. If the expansion is banned by the High Court , the region will suffer.
New Hope will bat on, as will the lawyers but Acland / Oakey will do it tough.
While I have no background to enable me to make an informed judgment on the possible outcome of the High Court proceedings that are now afoot, I think the statement by Her Honour :
"Contrary to New Acland’s submission, the appeal raises questions of importance and, having persuaded this Court that special leave was warranted, I consider that Oakey should not lightly be shut out because of its impecuniosity." suggests to me that New Hope will have an uphill battle to win this case.
Expand
(20min delay)