Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14
Item
-
Title
-
Hannigan and Associates Pty Ltd & Anor v Da Cunha & Anor [2022] QLC 14
-
Date
-
September 28, 2022
-
Summary
-
The case concerned an application for one of the mining lease applications related to an open cut mine proposed for the Bowen Basin, and objections to that application.
Although there were no objections relating to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and the Act had not come into force at the time the objections were lodged, the Court nonetheless was conscious of its obligation to consider any engaged human rights and not make a decision that was incompatible with human rights: at [21], [76]. The court cited factors set out in Cement Australia Exploration Pty Ltd & Anor v East End Mine Action Group & Anor (No 4) [2021] QLC 22, which it was to consider in its application of section 58 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [77].
1. Engagement: which rights might the objector seek to invoke?
2. Limitation: how might it be alleged that the rights are limited?
3. Justification: if the rights are limited, is/are the limitation/s reasonable and demonstrably justified? Is the limitation in accordance with procedural requirements and not arbitrary? Is the limitation on the human rights proportionate to other competing private and public interests?
4. Proper consideration: even if the limits are lawful and proportionate has the decision given proper consideration to the rights engaged?
5. Inevitable infringement: Does a statutory provision or law prescribe a different decision?
The court considered these factors in relation to Property rights, the Right to privacy and reputation and Cultural rights. Property rights were not infringed as all affected landholders had reached agreements or were finalising compensation: at [80]. Privacy rights were not infringed as there would be no interference on private land: at [81]. In relation to Cultural rights, a cultural heritage management agreement had been reached: at [82]. Consequently, these three rights would not be prejudiced.
