14 January ARELJ Case Note - Implications of New Provisions in the Human Rights Act Following Waratah Coal Decision January 14, 2021 By Sally Parker ARELJ, Environment, Resources and Energy ARELJ, HumanRightsAct, LandCourt 0 Gavin Scott and Jessica Rusten Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Senior Associate, Norton Rose Fulbright Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors  QLC 33 On 28 August 2020, President Kingham of the Land Court of Queensland dismissed an application filed by Waratah Coal Pty Ltd concerning a number of objections which have been lodged against their proposed Galilee Coal Project. This judgment is significant because it demonstrates how the new provisions within the Human Rights Act 2019 might be interpreted in the future. Additionally, the case serves to demonstrate how environmental groups may seek to use the Human Rights Act to object to proposed resources projects. In this Case Note, we set out the background to this decision and analyse what it means for the application of the Human Rights Act. Member Login Required to Access Case Note Read More Related Articles ARELJ - Case Note - Yindjibarndi Case “Occupation Requirement” Authority ARELJ Case Note - Guidance on the principles that apply to a decision of the Warden under S 122E of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) in respect of the removal of a caveat Richore Pty Ltd v Cougar Metals NL  WAWC 1 ARELJ - Case Note - Judgement Clarifies Extent of Non-Conforming Use Protections ARELJ Case Note - Applying the Cautionary Principle to Harvesting Timber in Victoria ARELJ - Case Note - Financial Consequences of the Dismissal of a Native Title Claim ARELJ Case Note - Health And Safety: Duties Of Persons Conducting A Business Or Undertaking Showing 0 Comment Comments are closed.