Winchester South: Land Court recommends mine approval after weighing climate impacts

What the decision means for resources proponents navigating environmental approvals, climate impacts and Scope 3 emissions 8 min read

On 30 October 2026, the Land Court of Queensland (the Court) recommended mining leases and environmental approval be granted for the proposed Winchester South coal mine in the decision of Whitehaven WS Pty Ltd v Australian Conservation Foundation Inc & Ors (No 4) [2026] QLC 24.

This decision is particularly important for resources proponents and serves as a detailed superstructure for the criteria that are relevant to a mining objections decision regarding mining lease applications (MLAs) under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MRA) and applications for environmental authorities (EA) under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act). The decision also provides guidance on the Court's approach to various sources of international climate change law and policy, some of which post-date Waratah.

Critically, the decision confronts a common challenge in climate change litigation worldwide: how to quantify the contribution of a specific project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the global adverse effects of climate change.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that it is not its function to set climate change policy. That is the role of policymakers, whose actions can compel decision-makers to act in concert.

Key takeaways

• The decision reinforces that the approval of an MLA or EA involves a broad statutory evaluation, with no single criterion being determinative, and emphasises that environmental harm must be balanced against a project's benefits.
• The Court also concluded that:
  • It is difficult to determine the extent of one project's contribution to climate change harm. Cumulative impacts are one of several criteria to be weighed when assessing MLA and EA applications under the MRA and EP Act, along with other statutory considerations.
  • The Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice – 'Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change' – was not binding on the Land Court when exercising its recommendatory powers.
  • Whitehaven carries the risk of rehabilitation irrespective of whether there is a market for product coal from the Winchester South Project (Project). The possibility of declining coal demand and early closure were treated as commercial risks rather than reasons to recommend refusal.
  • When considering the costs of combustion emissions, it is necessary to find the connection between the Project and the harm to Queensland specifically. On the evidence, the Court found the Project’s costs and benefits did not warrant refusal.

Background

The mining objections hearing was commenced as a result of objections to the Winchester South Project EA and MLAs from the Australian Conservation Foundation, Mackay Conservation Group and six non-active objectors. The Project is a proposed greenfield open-cut coal mine about 30 kilometres south-east of Moranbah, which is a long-established coal mining region in Queensland with many active mines. The Project comprises six pits and associated infrastructure, with a proposed disturbance footprint of approximately 6,950 hectares. Its anticipated mine life is 35 years, with 28 years of coal production. The Project was estimated to produce 60% coking/metallurgical coal (used for steel making) and 40% thermal coal (used for power generation), intended primarily for Asian export markets.

The Project was assessed as a coordinated project under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld) and underwent an extensive environmental impact statement process.

The objections broadly concerned:

• the Project's impacts on the local environment;
• the Project’s contribution to climate change; and
• future coal demand.

The Court ultimately recommended that the four MLAs and EA be granted, subject to some additional conditions regarding the content of a waste management plan and pre-clearance flora and fauna surveys. Because the Court is exercising its recommendatory function, these recommendations are not approvals. The final decisions on the MLAs and the EA remain to be made by the relevant decision-makers under the MRA (the Minister) and EP Act (the chief executive of the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation), respectively, having regard to the Court's recommendation.

Decision

The test under the MRA and EP Act

The Court affirmed that the relevant tests under the MRA and EP Act require  an overall evaluative judgment in which the relevant statutory considerations are weighed against one another. No single consideration, or combination of considerations, necessarily determines the outcome.

This evaluative assessment must be informed by the objects of the relevant Act.

The question was therefore not simply whether the Project would cause environmental harm, but whether, having weighed that harm alongside the Project's benefits and the other statutory considerations, the Court should recommend approval.

The Court also agreed that it did not have jurisdiction in this case to deal with matters that are the subject of assessment and approval under the progressive rehabilitation and closure plan (PRCP) regime. This is because these proceedings did not involve an application for a PRCP schedule under the EP Act.

Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions

The objectors argued that the applications for the Project should be refused on the basis of the Project's contribution to GHG emissions and climate change impacts.

The objectors sought to rely on the reasoning from the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion of 23 July 2025 titled Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (ICJ AO). The Court's treatment of this is significant because the ICJ AO post-dates the Court's landmark decision in Waratah, and this is the first time the Court has considered the ICJ AO in the context of a mining objections hearing.

The parties agreed the Project would contribute about 557 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO₂-e) emissions over its life, including about 540 million tonnes of Scope 3 emissions (or 'combustion emissions', as referred to in the case), being emissions that are associated with the burning of the coal when it is used by third parties in steel making and electricity generation processes. It was also agreed that the effect of burning coal from the Project would contribute to an increase in atmospheric temperature across the planet of 0.0003ºC.

The Court accepted substantial expert evidence on the consequences and costs of climate change. However, the central question was not whether climate change will be harmful globally; this was accepted by the Court in both this and earlier proceedings. The key point of contention was whether the cumulative impacts to climate change from the Project justified a refusal recommendation, and whether the harm could be  attributed specifically to Queensland.

On this issue, the Court accepted that section 14(2)(b) of the EP Act permits consideration of cumulative impacts, and that Scope 3 emissions are a relevant consideration when considering section 191(g). However, the Court emphasised that there must be a sense of proportionality when considering cumulative impacts.

The Court reached the following key conclusions:

• Although the Project would contribute to environmental degradation in Queensland, the Court acknowledged that it is difficult to determine the extent of that contribution, concluding that the contribution in terms of GHG emissions is likely to be very small.
• Cumulative impacts are one of several criteria to be weighed in the overall assessment of MLA and EA applications under the MRA and EP Act. Cumulative impacts must be viewed in context with other criteria and statutory considerations.
• The Court has discretion to have regard to the ICJ AO during a mining objections hearing, but it ought to consult it with 'discrimination and care'. Ultimately, the ICJ AO did not meaningfully tell against the Project in this case. The broader findings from the ICJ AO were difficult to apply specifically to the Project, particularly given Queensland’s detailed statutory assessment framework.
• It is not the Court's function to set climate policy. Policymakers can establish frameworks requiring decision-makers to act in concert. The function of the Court is to assess the Project under the statutory regime. If the Court were to recommend refusal of the Project, that recommendation would be symbolic, at best.

Economics and coal demand

Both Whitehaven and the objectors relied on expert evidence in the areas of economics and, separately, coal markets. There were two central issues:

• Whether the potential of a decline in coal demand would undermine the financial viability of the Project to such an extent that the Court should recommend refusal; and
• whether the costs of the Project outweighed the benefits.

On the first issue, the Court found it unnecessary to reach a conclusion about future coal markets because Whitehaven carries the risk of rehabilitation regardless. Declining coal demand and early closure were treated as commercial risks for Whitehaven, rather than reasons to recommend refusal.

On the second issue, the Court heard substantial evidence from both sides about the costs and benefits of the Project. A key point of contention was how to treat the costs of Scope 3 or combustion emissions from the Project.

It was recognised that the costs of combustion emissions would be high and that those costs would be incurred worldwide. It was necessary, however, to find the connection between the Project and the harm to Queensland. The Court accepted Whitehaven's economics expert's approach, which estimated Queensland's share of global costs based on its share of the world's population. In so doing, the Court concluded that the evaluative assessment of costs and benefits of the Project did not warrant refusal.

Human rights

The Court's analysis of human rights was largely consistent with previous mining objections hearing decisions.

The relevant human rights engaged were determined to be:

• the right to life;
• the rights of children;
• the right to recognition and equality before the law;
• the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
• the right not to have a person's privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with; and
• the right to own property and not be arbitrarily deprived of it.

The Court ultimately determined, after having evaluated all costs, benefits and impacts associated with the Project, that any limitations to the engaged human rights were proportionate and justified.

A novel line of argument raised by the objectors here was that there was also an implied human right to a clean and healthy environment. In response to this, the Court referred to the definition of human rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and noted that it confined human rights to those rights which were stated in Part 2, Divisions 2 and 3. That definition does not contemplate an implied right.

Next steps

While the Court recommended the MLAs and the EA required for the Project be granted, its recommendations are not binding and do not themselves constitute approval of the applications. The applications now fall to the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines and the chief executive of the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation for final determination. Those statutory decision-makers will determine whether to grant the approvals and adopt the Court's proposed changes to the EA conditions.

The Court's judgment provides a helpful guide for the key considerations and criteria that are relevant to an assessment under the MRA and EP Act. Developers, particularly of projects with substantial Scope 3 emissions, should consider the approach taken by the Land Court when considering environmental impacts.