North West Shelf Extension case hearing day 4

Court summary 

When: 10:15am, 24 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 4

 The parties gathered this morning at the Federal Court in Melbourne for the final day of the North West Shelf hearing.  

Woodside's final statements

The day began with Mr Damian Clothier KC, Counsel for Woodside, presenting Woodside’s closing remarks in response to FARA’s submissions.  

The Ministers submissions

Counsel for the Environment Minister, Mr Stepehen Lloyd KC, took the Court through the Minister’s submissions starting with the Minister’s Approval Decision reasons.  

Notably, Mr Lloyd did not agree with Woodside’s submission that ACF could not bring a claim of apprehended bias against the Minister because ACF’s interests were not sufficiently impacted by the NWSx Project. Mr Lloyd agreed with ACF’s submissions that the Minister’s power under the EPBC Act should be exercised in a way that does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that ACF was free to bring such a challenge. However, Mr Lloyd argued that nothing in the Minister’s conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.  

Mr Lloyd went on to argue that the conditions applied to the Approval Decision dealt with any lingering concerns about uncertainty as to the NWSx Project and its impacts, which ACF had highlighted in their arguments.  

Mr Matt Sherman, Junior Counsel for the Environment Minister next took the Court through the Minister’s arguments against ACF’s climate ground. Similarly to Woodside , Mr Sherman argued that previous judgments of the Court weighed against ACF’s suggestion that the Minister had misunderstood his task when he refused to consider the climate impacts of the NWSx Project. Mr Sherman also argued that, in any event, the Minister had in fact engaged in the qualitative exercise during that assessment which ACF had proposed was required.

ACF's reply submissions

In the afternoon session, Counsel for ACF, Mr Angus Scott KC, presented ACF’s responses to Woodside and the Minister’s submissions. Mr Scott sought to dispel alleged uncertainties about ACF’s climate argument, articulating precisely how the Minister may have misunderstood his power and misapplied the relevant test. Mr Scott emphasised that the Minister needed to contend with the impacts of the action in front of him, that is whether the impacts would have a significant impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance, instead of engaging in a comparison exercise between this project as against worldwide GHGs.  

Next, Mr Scott stepped through ACF’s argument that the Minister impermissibly took into account benefits of a separate and as yet unapproved project, the Browse Development, when weighing up the costs and benefits of the NWSx Project. Mr Scott explained that this was impermissible because, by taking into account the benefits of a separate project that hasn’t yet been approved under the EPBC Act, the Minister risked in effect pre-judging the outcome of that separate assessment.   

Finally, Mr Scott reinforced ACF’s argument that the Minister’s decision-making sequence and the nature of the consultation with Woodside gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Mr Scott emphasised that the consultation process under the EPBC Act is intended to be formalistic and an arm’s length process where the Minister considers the competing interests of the proponent and the environment.  However, what in fact took place was one of close negotiations not envisaged under the Act to determine conditions acceptable to Woodside with a view to finally approving approving the NWSx Project.  

The day ended with FARA’s reply submissions, presented by FARA Counsel, Sashi Maharaj KC.  

Justice Button’s judgment has been reserved and will be delivered at a later date.