North West Shelf Extension case hearing day 1

Court summary 

When: 10:15am, 21 July 2026 

Where: Federal Court, Melbourne (305 William St) 

A landmark challenge over the Environment Minister’s approval of the largest and longest operating gas project in Australia began today in the Federal Court in Melbourne.

EJA lawyers are in court this week representing the Australian Conservation Foundation Inc who are challenging the Minister’s decision to approve the extension of Woodside’s North West Shelf project out to 2070 (the NWSx Project).

If the project proceeds, it would be responsible for around four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime. The facility is located near Murujuga in the Dampier Archipelago National Heritage Place, the site of the world’s oldest and largest collection of First Nations rock art.  

Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), a project (often referred to as an ‘action’) must be referred to the Environment Minister if it may have a significant impact on a matter protected under the Act (referred to as Matters of National Environmental Significance, or MNES).

Relevantly, these protected matters include certain national heritage places, including Murujuga. The Environment Minister will then review the action and determine whether it needs assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. The Environment Minister approved the NWSx Project on 12 September 2025. 

ACF are arguing that the Minister’s decisions to (1) approve the project (the Approval Decision) and (2) refuse a reconsideration request calling on him to consider the climate impacts of the project (the Reconsideration Decision), were not compliant with the requirements of the EPBC Act and should be remitted to the Minister to be determined again according to law. The Environment Minister is the First Respondent  to the proceedings. Woodside, as the proponent of the NWSx Project, is appearing as the Second Respondent to the proceedings.  

ACF’s case is being heard alongside a separate proceeding brought by Friends of Aboriginal Rock Art (FARA), who also seeking a review of the Approval Decision. 

The proceedings have generated significant public interest, and the Federal Court has determined that the hearing will be livestreamed via the court’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@FederalCourtAus/streams

The UN Special Rapporteur for the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment successfully applied to intervene as amicus curiae (friend of the court) to provide the court with written submissions regarding Australia’s international environmental responsibilities. These submissions and other court documents can be accessed via the online court file: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/australian-conservation-foundation-inc

Day 1 

The parties gathered this morning before Justice Button to hear ACF’s opening submissions, delivered by Angus Scott KC, Senior Counsel for ACF.  

Mr Scott began by providing the court with a summary of the factual background of the NWSx Project, and an outline of the relevant statutory framework.  

Mr Scott then stepped through each of ACF’s five grounds: 

1. Under Ground 1, ACF argues that the Minister impermissibly took into account the economic benefits of a different project which hasn’t yet been approved, namely the Browse to North West Shelf Project, when weighing up the potential benefits of the NWSx Project as against the potential impacts on MNES. 

2. Grounds 2 and 3 concern uncertainties regarding the composition of the third party gas which is intended to be processed at the North West Shelf facility. ACF contends that these uncertainties left the action itself impermissibly uncertain and meant that the Minster did not have a rational basis for finding that the Approval Decision would not result in unacceptable impacts on the Dampier Archipelago.   

3. Ground 4 contends that the Minister erred when he refused to take into account the climate impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the NWSx Project. The Minister refused to consider climate impacts on the basis that the project is not a ‘substantial cause’ of the impacts of climate change on MNES. ACF contends that this conclusion resulted from the Minister misunderstanding the question he was supposed to ask himself.  

4. Ground 5 contends that a fair-minded observer may apprehend that the Minister may not have brought an impartial mind to the making of the Approval decision by reason of: 

1. The sequencing of the Approval Decision, the Reconsideration Decision, and the provision of the reasons for the Reconsideration Decision (which were provided after the Approval decision); and/or 

2. The nature and extent of the consultation between Woodside, the Department, and the Minister while the conditions of the Approval Decision were finalised.  

At the end of the day, the court dealt briefly with two procedural matters in the FARA proceedings. Court will resume tomorrow morning, when FARA’s senior counsel, Sashi Maharaj KC, will set out the Applicant’s arguments in the FARA proceeding.