State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Humane Society International (Australia) Inc [2019] FCAFC 163 (18 September 2019) (Allsop CJ, Greenwood and Robertson JJ) - 13wentworthselbornechambers
17032
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17032,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Humane Society International (Australia) Inc [2019] FCAFC 163 (18 September 2019) (Allsop CJ, Greenwood and Robertson JJ)


Catchwords:


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal exceeded its decision-making power in imposing conditions inconsistent with the essence of the application to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the primary decision-maker – whether the Tribunal misunderstood or erred in its application of the precautionary principle – whether the Tribunal proceeded on the basis of a false (and erroneous) dichotomy between scientific and non-scientific evidence – whether, in varying the permit to include certain conditions, the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness or erred in failing to specify that its decision was not to come into operation until a later date under s 43(5B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

ENVIRONMENT LAW – appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – the decision under review by the Tribunal was the decision of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to grant two permissions under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 (Cth) to the applicant to use and enter the Marine Park: to conduct a program to take animals or plants that pose a threat to human life or safety, being the Queensland Shark Control Program; and to conduct a research program comprising certain specified studies – whether the Tribunal misunderstood or erred in applying the precautionary principle