Court of Appeal: VicForests v Environment East Gippsland Ruling

Wood Central has posted the June 27 Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal Judgement in full.

Tue 27 Jun 23


A Victorian Court of Appeal ruling against VicForests could be the final nail in the coffin for Victoria’s native timber harvesting industry.

The Victorian native harvest bans will remain in place until the native timber industry is phased out after an appeal by state-owned forestry company VicForests was thrown out on Tuesday.

As reported by Wood Central, VicForests appealed a Supreme Court decision to halt logging in parts of the state after finding the forestry company failed to survey for protected glider species adequately.

Wood Central has published the Court of Appeal’s judgment in full.

Read the Court of Appeal judgment in VicForests v Environment East Gippsland Inc delivered on 27 June 2023.

Today, the Court of Appeal (Emerton P, Macaulay JA and Kaye JA) dismissed an appeal by VicForests against the decision of a judge in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.

The respondents, Environment East Gippsland Inc (EEG) and Kinglake Friends of the Forest Inc (KFF), are incorporated associations that have a special interest in the preservation of the forests in East Gippsland and the Central Highlands respectively.

EEG and KFF became concerned that VicForests’ timber harvesting operations in those areas threatened the survival of two species of gliding mammals, the southern greater glider and the yellow-bellied glider.

They brought proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking declarations and injunctions that, in substance, prevented VicForests from carrying out harvesting operations unless it took certain steps to comply with obligations under the regulatory framework, in particular the Code of Practice for Timber Production 2014 (as amended) (‘Code’).

The Code requires the application of the ‘precautionary principle’ during planning for harvesting, meaning that ‘if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation’.

It also requires the identification of biodiversity values during planning and prior to harvesting.

The trial judge found, among other things, that VicForests’ timber harvesting operations did not comply with the precautionary principle and threatened the gliders’ survival.

The judge granted injunctions and made declarations that prevented VicForests from carrying out timber harvesting operations in East Gippsland and the Central Highlands unless certain steps were taken.

These steps included using a reasonably practicable survey method likely to detect gliders present in a coupe targeted for harvesting and, when detected, undertaking specified actions including retaining 60% of the basal area of eucalypts in the harvested area of the coupe and implementing ‘exclusion areas’.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had correctly interpreted the requirements of the Code and that the declarations and injunctions were lawful. Contrary to VicForests’ submissions, the precautionary principle does not merely require the adoption of a certain decision-making process when planning timber harvesting.

Rather, the principle, as it is expressed in the Code, is directed to ensuring that proper measures are taken to prevent environmental degradation.

The trial judge was correct to conclude that the conservation of biodiversity values is a substantive obligation imposed by the Code and to assess, on the expert ecological evidence before her, whether VicForests’ harvesting operations sufficiently addressed the threats faced by the two glider species.

Having done so, it was open to her Honour to determine what were the minimum measures necessary to protect against such threats.

The Court of Appeal also held that the trial judge was correct in deciding that EEG and KFF had established the necessary equity to attract the declaratory and injunctive relief that was ultimately granted.

Applications to cross-appeal by EEG and KFF concerning the ambit of the injunctions were refused.

NOTE: This summary is necessarily incomplete. It is not intended as a substitute for the Court’s reasons or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons. The only authoritative pronouncement of the Court’s reasons and conclusions is that contained in the published reasons for judgment.

  • The full judgment is available for download from the Victorian Supreme Court website.

Last month the Victorian government declared an early end to native timber harvesting in the state by the close of 2024.

Amongst the justifications for the early exit was the Supreme Court case levelled by Environment East Gippsland against VicForests over timber harvesting operations in the East Gippsland area.

The announcement coincided with the Victorian State Budget, which, according to Victorian Environmental Minister Ingrid Scott, will see the most significant expansion to public forests in Victorian history – “protecting precious biodiversity and endangered species.”

Local communities, including the LaTrobe Council, have opposed the decision claiming “they will continue to fight for their voices to be heard, and for the creation of a sustainable and prosperous future for our City.”

Wood Central has dedicated coverage from the industry, the government, and, most importantly, the communities impacted by the decision.

Wood Central will update the story as more information becomes available.


  • Wood Central

    Wood Central is Australia’s first and only dedicated platform covering wood-based media across all digital platforms. Our vision is to develop an integrated platform for media, events, education, and products that connect, inform, and inspire the people and organisations who work in and promote forestry, timber, and fibre.


Related Articles