Upcoming Supreme Court hearing, page-27

CSGguy

I think you are correct.

Having had a little experience with judicial review in Queensland, it is the court's ultimate responsibility to determine whether or not the State has erred in its handling of this matter. It will ultimately be for Metgasco to prove that this is the case.

The most important question to answer will be

1. Has the State acted in accordance with the applicable legislation that enabled it to suspend MEL’s activities?

If the State has, then it’s all over MEL.

If the State hasn’t acted in accordance with the applicable legislation, then the court will (i) tell the State what errors it has made in its handling of this matter and (ii) require the State to “reprocess” its actions in lights of the court’s guidance.

The court cannot overturn the State’s decision to suspend MEL’s activities. It can only require the State to act in accordance with the handling requirements detailed in the applicable legislation.

The second question below, I believe, is probably not as relevant as the first as it is embodied within the first question.

2. Has MEL met the State’s minimum requirements in terms of community consultation?

Again, I don’t necessarily believe that the court can tell the State that MEL has met the State’s minimum requirements. But what it can tell the State is that it had erred in its determination of this matter. This judgment would then include guidance in respect to legislative interpretation or guidance as to what evidence or activities can and cannot be considered by the State in determining whether or not MEL has met these minimum requirements.

The argument of whether or not the State has a different expectation for (i) an explorer v’s a producer and (ii) a one off exploration well as opposed to a “1,000 (production) wells” may ultimately prove to be irrelevant if the community consultation guidelines or other legislation are devoid of a requirement for “proportionate” consultation/actions.

Clearly, pre-court negotiations failed. Wonder whether or not the State ever made available to MEL, the paperwork to show how it arrived at its decision to suspend MEL's activities. So much for being a model litigant.