North West Shelf Extension case hearing day 2

Court summary 

When: 10:15am, 22 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 2

The landmark challenge to the North West Shelf Extension Project (NWSx Project) continued today in the Federal Court in Melbourne. See yesterday’s blog for a brief background to the proceedings. Today, the Court was taken through FARA’s (Friends of Aboriginal Rock Art) challenges to the Environment Minister’s approval of the NWSx Project. FARA argued that the Minister’s decision to approve the NWSx Project was not compliant with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). 

Counsel for FARA include Sashi Maharaj KC, Selena Bateman, and Priyanka Banerjee. FARA are represented by Johnson Legal.  

In the morning session, after providing the Court with a summary of the legislative context, Ms Maharaj took the Court through the first two grounds of FARA’s challenge: 

Ground 1: The Minister should have considered both the environmental benefits and detriments of the NWSx Project, and he failed to do so. 

Ground 2: Even if the Minister did consider economic detriments of the NWSx Project, there was no logical basis for the Minister to take into consideration the economic benefits of a separate and as yet unapproved project (namely, the Browse Development) when he considered the economic matters of the NWSx Project. 

Ms Bateman then took the Court through grounds 3 to 5: 

Grounds 3, 4 and 5: Grounds 3 and 4 concerned the material that was before the Minister when he made the decision to approve the NWSx Project. In summary, FARA contend that the Minister relied on outdated advice from the Department, and in doing so did not comply with the EPBC Act when making his decision, and when attaching certain conditions to the approval decision. Ground 5 contends that the Minister acted unreasonably when he attached certain conditions to the approval decision, because he attached the conditions on the basis of feasibility for Woodside to proceed with the proposed Project, rather than on the basis of the protection of the Dampier Archipelago  

Finally, Ms Banerjee concluded the day by setting out FARA’s arguments under grounds 6 and 7: 

Grounds 6 and 7: Grounds 6 and 7 concern the National Heritage Management Principles. FARA argued that the EPBC Act requires the Minister not to act inconsistently with the Principles when deciding to approve a project. FARA argued that the Minister did not comply with this requirement, and so his decision to approve the project is invalid.  

Court will resume tomorrow, when Counsel for the Second Respondent (Woodside) will set out their arguments.