Litigation
EDO represents individuals, community groups and non-government organisations in environmental and planning litigation across Australian jurisdictions. Its work primarily involves judicial review proceedings, merits appeals in planning tribunals, and public interest litigation under Commonwealth and state environmental laws, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act), state planning legislation and offshore petroleum regulation frameworks.
EDO has been involved in a number of cases concerning coal mining, gas development, biodiversity protection, offshore petroleum activities and climate change impacts. Legal commentators have noted that Australia is one of the most active jurisdictions globally for climate-related public interest litigation, with EDO acting in several such matters.
Public interest environmental law centres such as EDO have been described by legal academics as playing a role in facilitating access to justice and testing administrative decision-making. Critics argue that such litigation can delay or increase the cost of major development projects. Supporters argue it strengthens regulatory accountability and improves decision-making quality.
Munkara v Santos controversy
On January 15, 2024, a significant judgment was handed down in the Australian Federal Court case, Munkara v Santos NA Barossa Pty Ltd. The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) represented Munkara, but the findings by Justice Charlesworth have raised concerns about EDO's conduct in the case.
Judge Charlesworth found evidence of potential interference by EDO in the case, citing that the evidence presented was "so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed." She expressed concerns that "some of the comments and actions of the EDO were “distorting and misrepresenting what the Indigenous informant had said," forcing her to approach their evidence with extreme caution. Ultimately, Santos prevailed in the case and was awarded costs. On 24 November 2024 the EDO was ordered to pay $9 Million AUD to Santos because the judge ruled the that they had not been impartial and had engaged in "a form of subtle coaching", and effectively became a party to the case.
Public reporting through the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission indicated that EDO obtained a $6.5M loan facility to assist in meeting the costs order, and that in 2025 a philanthropic supporter forgave the outstanding balance of that loan. The loan forgiveness was reflected in EDO’s FY2025 audited accounts.
Read the full text
The judgment has sparked debate about the role of EDO and the use of government funding for such organisations. Western Australian Premier, Roger Cook, labeled the case "environmental lawfare" aimed at disrupting new resource ventures. Former Labor cabinet minister Joel Fitzgibbon echoed these criticisms, arguing that legal aid for activists harms the Australian economy and should be scrapped. " “Hopefully the broader community is beginning to see activist lawfare for what it is, ideological and a threat to our living standards" he stated.
While a departmental review cleared the group of any breaches of its government funding arrangements, both the federal and West Australian oppositions have pledged to de-fund the EDO if elected.
