A legal challenge to the finding that Jam Land, the company part-owned by the former energy minister Angus Taylor and his brother Richard, had illegally cleared critically endangered grasslands, has been dismissed.
The company had lodged an appeal in the federal court to an order that it restore 103 hectares (254 acres) of grasslands on a property in Corrowong in NSW.
In a judgment on Tuesday afternoon, Justice Michael Lee dismissed the application for judicial review and ordered Jam Land to pay the government’s costs.
Jam Land is part-owned by the opposition treasury spokesperson and his brother Richard Taylor, who is also one of the company’s directors.
Jam Land lodged its appeal in December after a ministerial review of the case affirmed an earlier determination it had illegally cleared up to 28.5 hectares (71 acres) of natural temperate grasslands on a property in Corrowong in southern NSW and required the company to remediate.
The affected grasslands, known as the natural temperate grassland of the south-eastern highlands, are one of the most threatened ecosystems in Australia and Jam Land was seeking to have their listing as critically endangered declared invalid.
According to the written judgment, the company argued the remediation order should be overturned on three grounds, the first being the grasslands had not been validly listed under national environmental laws.
The company also argued the order was invalid because officials failed to consider the listing instrument when finalising the investigation and instead looked at another document known as a conservation advice.
Finally, Jam Land argued the government failed to specify “with sufficient precision” what action was required to repair or mitigate the damage.
The judgment found Jam Land’s case failed on all three grounds.
The Jam Land investigation has been controversial because Angus Taylor sought meetings with senior environment officials and the office of the then-environment minister Josh Frydenberg about the grasslands while the investigation was under way.
Documents released to Guardian Australia under freedom of information laws in 2019 revealed Frydenberg’s office subsequently sought advice about whether laws protecting the grasslands could be changed.
Other documents sought by Guardian Australia are the subject of an ongoing freedom of information case in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Angus Taylor has repeatedly stated that he sought the meetings with departmental officials on behalf of constituents in Hume who were concerned about the grasslands listing.
He has previously said, “I did not make any representations to federal or state authorities in relation to any compliance action being undertaken.”
The department has previously said officials did not discuss the compliance matter with Taylor.
In 2020, three-and-a-half years after Jam Land sprayed herbicide on the property, an investigation by the department concluded the grasslands had been removed illegally and ordered Jam Land restore 103 hectares (254 acres) of grasslands on another part of the property.
The company sought a ministerial review of that determination. In December a delegate for the former environment minister Sussan Ley affirmed the original findings and the remediation order.
Jam Land responded by appealing to the federal court, which Richard Taylor described at the time as “a matter of principle”.
The Australian Farmers’ Fighting Fund, which was established to help farmers fight nationally significant court cases and is administered by the National Farmers’ Federation, provided financial support for Jam Land’s case.
“In approving the application, the trustees determined the matter was a clear demonstration of the ambiguity and uncertainty in the act, and how the government’s approach to its implementation could have massive ramifications for farmers,” the fund’s chair Hugh Nivison said at the time.
Tuesday’s judgment comes almost six years after the grasslands on the Jam Land property were cleared using herbicide.
Comment was sought from Jam Land and the federal government.
Jam Land’s solicitor, Peter Briggs, said because the matter was still before the courts it would be inappropriate to comment.
Jam Land has 28 days to consider whether it wishes to appeal against the decision to the full federal court.
