Environmental Law



 

 


Environmental Law


By: James Plumb, Partner and Johanna Kennerley, Senior Associate 

Within the next 6 months, both petroleum and mining tenure holders will be impacted by new obligations under the Water Act 2000 (Qld) (Water Act).

In this two part series, we will firstly examine the obligations on petroleum tenure holders to enter into make good agreements, which is particularly relevant with the draft Underground Water Impact Report (UWIR) being finalised shortly. In the second part of our Water Act series, we will focus on the changes to the Water Act and examine the new obligations on holder of mining tenure.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.


Contact: Andrew Shute, Partner and Johanna Kennerley, Senior Associate; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia) 

Late last year, the Victorian Supreme Court in the matter of Winky Pop & Anor v Mobil & Anor [2015] VSC 348 was asked to consider the principles of assessment of damages to land, where land owned by a third party was contaminated from a leaking oil pipeline. The plaintiff, Winky Pop, sought opportunity loss damages in the vicinity of $170 million from the defendant, Mobil, for negligently contaminating its land. Mobil, which did not deny causing the contamination but was undertaking remediation, was only required to pay just over $100,000 for the costs of investigation.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.


Contact: James Plumb, Partner; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia) 

As we reported in March, the Queensland Government introduced proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act) would give the environmental regulator the ability to issue environmental protection orders (EPO) to parties connected with the holder of an environmental authority (related persons).

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.


Contact: James Plumb, Partner and Duncan Lomas, Solicitor; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia) 

Carter Newell first reported on the matter of Henry v ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd (ERO) [2015] QLC 13 in our previous newsletter issued in June 2015 titled ‘Material change in circumstances’. In this case, the landholder successfully applied to the Land Court claiming that there had been a material change of circumstances in mining operations on the land, since the entry by the parties into a compensation agreement in 2002. The key issue in dispute was whether the actions of ERO, in fencing off and restricting access to an existing road on the land, amounted to a material change in circumstances warranting an adjustment to the compensation paid to the landholder.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.

 


Contact: James Plumb, Partner; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)

In response to the circumstances surrounding the administration of the troubled Yabulu Nickel Refinery, the Queensland Environment Minister introduced the Environmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Bill 2016 (Bill) on 15 March 2016.

To read the full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com.