North West Shelf Extension case hearing day 3

Court summary 

When: 10:15am, 23 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 Archipeligo 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, is appearing as the Second Respondent to the proceedings.  

ACF’s case is being heard alongside a separate proceeding brought by Friends of Australian 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 3

Today, ACF’s landmark challenge against the Environment Minister’s approval of Woodside's North West Shelf Extension Project (NWSx Project) continued before Justice Button in the Federal Court in Melbourne. Today, the parties heard the submissions of the First Respondent, Woodside.  

See Tuesday’s blog for a brief background to the proceedings and ACF’s submissions.  

Woodside’s submissions  

Mr Damian Clothier KC, Counsel for Woodside, began the day by taking the Court through Woodside’s arguments regarding the nature of the Minister’s power to approve projects under the EPBC Act. Mr Clothier emphasised the breadth of the Minister's power, and generally argued that this breadth of power defeated arguments proposed by ACF and FARA that the Minister failed to take into consideration certain matters (for example, economic detriments of the project), and/or took into account matters which he was not permitted to consider (for example, the separate and as-yet approved  Browse Project). It fell to the Minister, Mr Clothier contended, to determine what social and economic matters should be considered when determining whether projects like NWSx should proceed.

Mr Clothier responded to ACF’s apprehended bias argument which suggested that the Minister did not bring an open mind when deciding to approve the project given the extensive consultation between Woodside and the Minister. Mr Clothier argued  that ACF was not able to complain of a potential apprehension of bias in the Minister’s decision making, since only those whose interests were directly affected (in this instance Woodside) could bring such complaints. Mr Clothier contended that, even if ACF were able to make such an argument, there was nothing unusual about the extent, length and nature of the consultations between Woodside, departmental, personnel, and the Minister’s office. Mr Clothier emphasised that the Minister was permitted to have a preference for a particular outcome, so long as his mind remained open to persuasion.   

After the lunch adjournment, Ms Frances Gordon KC responded to ACF’s argument that the Minister erred when deciding that the NWSx Project would not be a 'substantial cause’ of the physical effects of climate change on relevant protected matters.  Ms Gordon submitted that ACF’s argument was largely blocked by previous findings of the Court, and even if they weren't, there was no error in the Minister’s understanding and application of ‘substantial cause’.  

The day came to a close with Mr Clothier addressing the counterarguments to FARA’s submissions. 

Tomorrow 

Court will resume at 10:15am tomorrow. Counsel for the the Environment Minister will present the Minister’s submissions. Counsel for ACF, Mr Angus Scott KC, and Counsel for FARA, Ms Sashi Maharaj KC, will then present ACF and FARA’s responses to Woodside and the Minister’s submissions.