RESPONDENT QUESTIONS WARBURTON ENIVRONMENT’S LEGAL STANDING IN SEEKING RELIEF AGAINST TIMBER HARVESTING
Warburton Environment Inc v VicForests (No 2) [2020] VSC 738 (9 November 2020)
This case involves the plaintiff seeking relief from the court to prevent timber harvesting while the respondent questions the plaintiff’s legal standing in asking for such relief alleging plaintiff’s failure to plead facts to show special interest.
Facts:
The plaintiff is a not-for-profit association incorporated in 2008. The defendant was established under s.14 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1992.
Warburton Environment filed summons seeking interlocutory relief to restrain VicForests from timber harvesting operations unless various conditions are met in relation to Tree Geebung. Tree Geebung has been assessed for a provisional listing of ‘Endangered’ which reflects the threats of climate change and increased fire frequency to the species.
Warburton Environment’s standing is strongly contested. VicForests admits in its defence that Warburton Environment has standing in relation to the Pat’s Corner coupe. However, it submits that Warburton Environment does not have standing to seek relief in relation to the Central Highlands region generally.
Warburton Environment submits that it has a special interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and can bring proceedings to uphold public rights. It says that its standing extends beyond the Warburton area to the Central Highlands region.
Issue: Does the plaintiff have legal standing to seek relief?
Held:
Warburton Environment has pleaded no facts that might support the conclusion that it has a special interest, and therefore standing. The statement of claim does not refer to the mission statement or activities of Warburton Environment.
Warburton Environment’s statement of claim does not set out the ultimate facts that it intends to prove at trial to establish standing.
It is necessary for the Court to have a sufficient degree of certainty as to the facts alleged to establish Warburton Environment’s standing, the nature of the claim to be advanced, and the relief sought. This is not the case at present. It is not acceptable for the Court to have to sift through numerous affidavits and exhibits to identify possible facts that may relate to standing.
Conclusion: Plaintiff does not have legal standing.
