Court imposes $9 million costs on Environmental Defenders Office for Barossa gas project legal challenge

In Australia, the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) initiated a legal challenge against Santos regarding the Barossa gas project, which involves constructing a pipeline from the Barossa offshore gas field to the existing Bayu-Undan pipeline. The challenge was filed in late October 2023 on behalf of three traditional owners from the Tiwi Islands, aiming to halt the project's development due to concerns over cultural heritage and environmental impacts. However, in January, Justice Natalie Charlesworth dismissed the case, delivering a critical judgment against the EDO and finding major deficiencies in their legal arguments and evidence, including claims that the pipeline would harm intangible underwater heritage. The court found that the EDO had improperly coached witnesses and that the evidence it provided was not representative of the broader Tiwi beliefs. Following the dismissal, Santos sought reimbursement for its legal costs incurred during the proceedings. The court ordered the EDO to pay Santos over $9 million, which represents the total costs that Santos incurred during the case. Santos clarified that it did not seek costs from the Aboriginal and Tiwi Islander applicants but did request information about the funding of the EDO and other parties involved in opposing the pipeline project. The EDO's chief executive, David Morris, acknowledged the judgment's seriousness and emphasized that the organization has been providing public interest legal support for nearly 40 years, despite the financial implications of this judgment. The decision has raised questions about the EDO's future funding arrangements and its ability to support similar challenges in the future. The federal government’s review of the EDO found that it had not breached the conditions of its federal funding, suggesting that the organization remains committed to its mission despite the financial setback from this recent legal defeat. This case serves as a significant example of the ongoing tensions between environmental advocates and resource development companies in Australia, highlighting the complexities surrounding land rights and cultural heritage protections in projects involving natural resource extraction. The outcome may influence future legal frameworks and advocacy efforts concerning Aboriginal cultural heritage and environmental projects across Australia.