Who Gets to Hold Power Accountable? Standing and Access After Forestry Corporation v South East Forest Rescue
Home › Case Studies › Case Law Library › Environmental Law › Forestry Corporation of New South Wales v South East Forest Rescue Incorporated [2025] HCA 15 (9 April 2025)
Published: 19 November 2025 | Reviewed: 19 November 2025
(3-minute read)
Case Summary
This appeal required the High Court to determine whether community groups with a special interest can bring civil enforcement proceedings in the Land and Environment Court (LEC) to enforce obligations imposed by an Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (IFOA) under Pt 5B of the Forestry Act 2012 (NSW).
Forestry Corporation argued that s 69ZA prevented anyone except Ministers, the EPA and government officials from bringing proceedings to enforce duties arising under Pt 5B or an IFOA. The Court rejected that argument.
The most important line appears early in the judgment:
“The appeal fails because a clear and unmistakeable intention to withdraw access to the LEC is not demonstrated.”
The Court held:
Pt 5B does not exclude the longstanding equitable principle that persons with a special interest may seek to enforce public duties.
Section 69ZA only limits actions brought under specific open standing provisions (such as any person provisions), not actions brought under the LEC’s Class 4 jurisdiction.
Absent clear statutory exclusion, standing principles from Boyce v Paddington Borough Council continue to apply.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. The community group could proceed.
Why It Still Matters
This decision reinforces a structural truth about Australian public law:
Courts remain open unless Parliament clearly closes the door.
The High Court required a clear and unmistakeable legislative intention before restricting who can enforce environmental obligations. Nothing in Pt 5B or the Biodiversity Act demonstrated such an intention.
For clients, this case highlights a universal risk:
access to justice can become uncertain when statutes interact with complex jurisdictional pathways,
particularly where government bodies argue that only regulators can act.
Clients dealing with regulators, environmental approvals, government agencies or large corporates often face the same underlying concern:
who is actually allowed to challenge a decision, and on what basis?
That uncertainty has financial consequences. Commencing proceedings without understanding:
whether standing exists;
whether jurisdiction is open or restricted;
the intensity of judicial scrutiny; and
the practical likelihood of the court granting relief
can expose clients to avoidable cost and strategic risk.
This is where structured, independent early advice becomes protective.
How to Avoid the Same Trap:
Independence & Fair-Process Safeguards
The risk exposed in Forestry Corporation is an access-to-justice risk: a party may be told they cannot bring proceedings when in fact the law preserves their right to do so. The High Court confirmed that only a clear statutory command can restrict the public’s ability to enforce public duties.
Clean Law’s independence safeguards are designed to prevent clients from proceeding, or deciding not to proceed, based on incomplete or one-sided assumptions.
Those safeguards include:
independent oversight of statutory pathways, standing tests and jurisdictional limits;
a structural separation between strategic oversight and courtroom advocacy;
no referral-fee or profit-share practices, so advice remains unaffected by internal incentives;
Law Society trust-account audits and ACNC-governed transparency;
and a pre-commencement process that gives clients clarity before they fund any legal step.
Consolidated tenders: one case summary, multiple independent opinions
To prevent clients committing resources prematurely, Clean Law prepares:
one neutral case summary based on the client’s documents;
sends it to multiple independent barristers or experts;
receives separate views on standing, jurisdiction, strategy, risk and likely cost;
consolidates those views into a plain-language pack so the client can make an informed decision.
This is particularly important in matters like Forestry Corporation, where the entire dispute may hinge on complex statutory interpretation. Clients can weigh different opinions, verify the reasoning across sources, and avoid committing funds until the pathway is clear.
If standing, jurisdiction or regulatory power affects your matter, our independence safeguards explain how we ensure clarity before clients take on risk.
Learn more → Independence & Safeguards Framework
The High Court has again confirmed that courts protect access unless Parliament unmistakably withdraws it. For clients, this reinforces how critical it is to obtain early clarity, on rights, risks, and the true legal pathways available, before investing in litigation or regulatory challenge.
If your dispute involves government oversight, environmental regulation, planning law or public-law powers, a confidential conversation can help map the safest and most proportionate next steps.
Book a confidential discussion → Secure a Private Consultation
By Nicky Wang
Principal Solicitor
Legal Liaison Ltd (trading as Clean Law)
Prepared in accordance with public-interest governance,
annual Law Society trust-account audits, and ACNC-reported standards.
Disclaimer: This page is intended to provide general information only and is not legal advice. The contents may not reflect the most current legal developments and do not take into account your individual circumstances. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without obtaining legal advice tailored to your situation.
