The High Court has allowed the South East Forest Rescue group to sue the Forestry Corporation of NSW. The conservation group alleged that FCNSW did not conduct a broad-area habitat search for features of habitat for three species of glider—two vulnerable and one endangered.
And whilst the Land and Environmental Court of NSW had ruled in favour of FCNSW, which argued that the group had no “special interest” in bringing the case, the decision was overturned by the NSW Court of Appeal (which found that it was just justified), with the High Court, today, agreeing that SEFR had justification to bring forward the case.
For SEFR, the decision ended “a protracted legal battle.”
“Rather than engaging with the substance of our claims, Forestry Corporation has fought to deny our right to bring them to court,” according to Scott Daines, a spokesperson for the group. “It is disappointing that taxpayer money was spent trying to avoid scrutiny rather than to address the environmental harm in question.”
“This decision gives us a measure of hope amid an escalating extinction crisis.”
A FCNSW spokesperson said it would review the judgment “in detail and consider the next steps.” The case is now expected to go back to the Land and Environment Court later this year, and SEFR is seeking court orders to prevent logging in state forests unless proper surveys for gliders are completed and protections are put in place.
According to the ABC, FCNSW’s sole grounds of appeal were an argument that private people or entities could not launch a case to enforce the duties of forestry approval. However, the High Court has ruled that, for such persons to be prevented from launching a case, there needs to be “a clear and unmistakable” intention to do so in the legislation, which does not exist.
Dailan Pugh from the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) described the decision as “a boon” because it reaffirms the right of conservation groups to launch legal challenges against the Forestry Corporation. But he said that opportunity would be used “judiciously”.
“This right has been established for some years now, and there hasn’t been a flood of litigation,” Mr Pugh said. “We just think our logging rules are inadequate.”
“We’ll do whatever we can to try and prove that in court and try to get proper protection for our threatened species.”
