procedural. Orders granted: Applicant (Bushfire Survivors) was given leave to file and serve expert evidence from Professor Penny Sackett on six specified propositions/questions, amended to require the expert...
Key principles
Leave to file and serve expert evidence in Class 4 proceedings may be granted at interlocutory stage to focus and limit pre-trial dispute, provided the topics are sufficiently...
Expert evidence proposed must be confined to propositions/questions that require the expert to address impacts on the environment of New South Wales; the Court will require such...
Granting leave to adduce expert evidence at interlocutory stages is a preliminary case management decision; admissibility and relevance remain matters for the trial judge when...
The respondent's right to seek leave to adduce expert evidence in reply and to reserve objections on admissibility and relevance may be preserved when the applicant is granted...
Issues before the court
Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to file and serve expert evidence in Class 4 proceedings challenging the EPA's policy responses to...
Plain English Summary
The Land and Environment Court granted Bushfire Survivors interlocutory leave to file expert climate evidence from a nominated scientist, but only after narrowing and reframing the proposed topics so the expert was required to explain how the matters would impact the environment of New South Wales. The Court treated this as a case-management measure; questions about admissibility and relevance remain for the trial judge, and the EPA may seek leave to adduce reply expert evidence.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,687 words · generated 16/06/2026
What happened
Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc commenced Class 4 proceedings against the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) seeking orders in the nature of mandamus requiring the EPA to develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies concerning climate change (the Summons and Amended Summons and Points of Claim) [3]-[5]. The EPA filed Points of Defence, annexing a 24-page list of policy document titles (300 titles) intended to demonstrate that it had discharged its statutory duties [6]. The Applicant served a Notice to Admit Facts containing 73 items; the EPA disputed many of those, responding both formally and by a discursive letter [7]-[8].
Whether proposed expert topics were sufficiently precise and within the Court's jurisdictional scope.
Whether factual propositions in a Notice to Admit Facts were appropriate for admission.
Cited legislation
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
The Applicant then filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to adduce expert evidence (climate science) to address a series of broadly framed topics tied to the Points of Claim and the Notice to Admit Facts [9]. The Court heard the motion over three days by video link because of COVID-19 arrangements [10]. The judge (Moore J) was prepared in principle to give leave at the interlocutory stage to permit expert evidence, but considered the Applicant's proposed scope too broad and insufficiently precise. The Court therefore engaged in an iterative process with the parties to reframe the proposed propositions/questions (and required that certain questions be qualified to require the expert to address impacts on the environment of New South Wales) [16]-[18], [28]-[30]. On 26 October 2020, the Court ordered that leave be granted for the Applicant to file and serve expert evidence by the nominated expert (Professor Penny Sackett) on six specified propositions/questions as amended; the EPA was preserved the right to seek leave to adduce expert evidence in reply and to raise admissibility and relevance objections at trial [1], [31].
Why the court decided this way
The Court's decision rests on three interrelated pragmatic and legal considerations.
Case management and narrowing of issues. The Court observed that the Applicant's pleadings and its Notice to Admit contained a mixture of factual claims and contestable opinions, which signalled a potentially protracted pre-trial interlocutory dispute. Granting leave to adduce focused expert evidence would provide a clearer and narrower factual and evidentiary canvas for trial, potentially reducing pre-trial skirmishing and assisting the trial judge to define the contest between the parties [20]-[27].
Requirement of connection to the Court's jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that proposed expert questions must be framed so as to require the expert to address matters within the statutory jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, the judge required that certain questions be qualified to ask the expert not only about global or national trends, but expressly "and how that would impact on the environment of New South Wales" [29]. That requirement ensures the expert evidence will be relevant to the relief sought and to the Court's remit.
Preservation of admissibility as a trial issue. Moore J made clear that the interlocutory grant of leave is a preliminary case-management step. Questions of admissibility and ultimate relevance of any expert material remain for the trial judge when the evidence is tendered; that reservation also preserves the EPA's right to demur or object to the evidence at trial and to seek leave to adduce reply expert evidence if necessary [12], [31].
These considerations underpinned the Court's controlled grant of leave: the Applicant obtained permission to present expert climate evidence, but only in a focused form and with the procedural safeguards that preserve the respondent's rights and the trial judge's ultimate gatekeeping function.
Before and after state of the law
Before: The Court recognised that prior Class 4 proceedings have adopted differing approaches toward permitting expert evidence in challenges to administrative or policy decision-making (the judgment cites Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group Inc v Dart Energy Ltd (No 2) and Help Save Mt Gilead Inc v Mount Gilead Pty Limited) [12]. The high court authority Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend was also cited as a reminder of the caution required when courts approach administrative functions exercised by statutory bodies [12].
After: This decision does not create novel legal principle; rather it applies established concepts of case management and the relevance/admissibility constraints on expert evidence to the Class 4 context. Its practical effect is to confirm that interlocutory leave to adduce expert evidence will be granted where it can be shown that such evidence will assist in focusing issues, but the Court will require topics to be precisely framed and linked to the Court's statutory remit. It reinforces that admissibility remains a question for the trial judge, and the respondent's right to seek reply evidence is preserved [12], [21]-[23], [31].
The decision aligns with the cautious approach endorsed by prior Land and Environment Court decisions, it is a management-oriented ruling rather than a substantive ruling on the value of climate science evidence in such proceedings.
Key passages with plain-English translation
Passage: "On 26 October 2020, I made orders granting leave ... to file and serve expert evidence from Professor Penny Sackett ..." [1].
Plain-English: The Court formally allowed the Applicant to call a named climate scientist as an expert witness for the proceedings.
Passage: "An example of the problem ... 'Unregulated release of greenhouse gases is the greatest threat to the environment of NSW.'" [14].
Plain-English: The Court noted that the Applicant had used the admissions process to try to secure agreement to evaluative opinions, not pure facts, which is inappropriate for a notice to admit.
Passage: "I indicated that ... I was only prepared to grant leave if the words 'and how that would impact on the environment of New South Wales' were added ..." [29].
Plain-English: The judge required the expert's questions to be explicitly tied to effects on New South Wales, ensuring the evidence is relevant to the Court's power to grant relief.
Passage: "I made orders granting ... leave to file and serve expert evidence ... subject to the right of the EPA ... to seek leave to rely on expert evidence in reply ... and ... to press matters of admissibility and relevance ..." [31].
Plain-English: The Court granted conditional permission for the Applicant's expert evidence, but kept open the EPA's options to respond with its own expert and to argue at trial that the Applicant's evidence should not be admitted or is irrelevant.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
This interlocutory ruling is most directly applicable to fact patterns where:
An applicant in environmental or administrative litigation seeks to rely on expert scientific evidence to establish systemic or policy-level effects (here, climate science on bushfire risk and emissions trajectories) [9], [18].
The proposed expert topics are broad, potentially national or global in scope, but the relief sought is local or statutory to a particular jurisdiction (here, NSW) such that the Court requires an explicit link to the local environment [28]-[30].
The pleadings and pre-trial documents (e.g., Notices to Admit) contain evaluative or contestable propositions that could be better addressed by expert evidence than by admissions [14]-[16].
The respondent has filed an extensive list of policy materials or defences that suggest a need to focus the issues rather than proceed on an unstructured omnibus complaint [6], [23].
In such circumstances courts may grant interlocutory leave to adduce expert evidence, but will require focused, jurisdiction-linked propositions and preserve objections to admissibility and rights to reply evidence.
How later courts have treated it
This judgment itself cites earlier Land and Environment Court authorities showing different approaches to expert evidence in Class 4 proceedings (Fullerton Cove; Help Save Mt Gilead) and cites the High Court in Peko-Wallsend as authority for caution in approaching administrative functions [12]-[13]. The present decision uses those authorities as guidance for a case-management approach.
This decision does not report subsequent appellate treatment or later citations, and the judgment contains no discussion of subsequent authorities applying it. To determine how later courts have treated this decision specifically would require targeted research beyond the text of the decision itself.
Still-open questions
Threshold for admissibility at trial. While the Court granted interlocutory leave, questions of the admissibility of the expert evidence and the weight to be accorded remain for the trial judge. How the trial judge will apply the rules on expert admissibility in this particular factual matrix (e.g., to questions about attribution, modelling uncertainty, or causation at various geographic scales) is unresolved by this interlocutory decision [12], [31].
Appropriate scope of expert evidence in policy-challenge proceedings. The decision requires an express link to the NSW environment, but it leaves open how granular that link must be. For example, must an expert quantify impacts specifically within NSW, or is a reasoned articulation of how global/national trends will manifest in NSW sufficient? The judgment requires the phrase "and how that would impact on the environment of New South Wales" but does not define the level of analysis required [29]-[31].
Use of Notices to Admit in systemic policy litigation. The Court criticised the Applicant's use of a Notice to Admit to seek agreement to evaluative propositions. The decision suggests that such tactics should not replace focused expert evidence or conventional pleading and proof, but it does not prescribe precise limits on the use of admissions in such contexts [14]-[16]. Parties and practitioners may need further guidance on the line between permissible factual admissions and impermissible requests for agreement to opinions.
Reply expert evidence and procedural sequencing. The EPA's preserved right to seek leave for reply expert evidence raises sequencing questions; for instance, what limitation or timeframes should bind such replies to avoid escalating and duplicative expert exchanges? The Court's order preserves the EPA's rights but leaves management of potential reply evidence for further interlocutory control or trial directions [31].
Concluding observation: This decision is primarily a careful case-management ruling. It reinforces the principle that expert evidence may be permitted where it will assist the court to focus contested issues, but it requires that such evidence be tailored to the Court's statutory terrain. The substantive evidentiary battles concerning admissibility, weight, and the localised manifestation of global phenomena such as climate change remain to be fought at trial.
Catchwords
[2013] NSWLEC 38
Judgment (11 paragraphs)
[1]
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The substantive proceedings
Subsequent procedural steps
The Notice of Motion hearings
The approach to be taken here
When "facts" are not facts but are contestable opinions
The position at the end of the interlocutory hearings
Consideration
The form of my orders
Annexure A
Annexure B
[2]
Introduction
On 26 October 2020, I made orders granting leave for the Applicant in these Class 4 proceedings, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action Inc (Bushfire Survivors), to file and serve expert evidence from Professor Penny Sackett, a climate scientist at the Australian National University in Canberra.
These reasons for decision explain why I was satisfied that such leave should be granted. They also set out the process by which the specific topics for which I have given leave were refined from the significantly broader, and much less focused, scope for which Bushfire Survivors had originally made application.
[3]
The substantive proceedings
On 8 April 2020, Bushfire Survivors commenced these proceedings against the Environment Protection Authority (the EPA) by filing a Summons effectively challenging the adequacy of the EPA's policy responses to climate change. The Summons and Bushfire Survivors' Points of Claim was served on the EPA by e-mail on 15 April 2020.
On 8 May 2020, Bushfire Survivors was granted leave to rely on an Amended Summons. The Amended Summons sought the same relief as in the original Summons. This relief was (and remains):
Pursuant to ss 65(1) and 69(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and ss 20(2)(a) and 20(3)(a) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979, orders in the nature of mandamus requiring the Respondent to:
(a) develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environment protection; and
(b) develop draft policies in accordance with Chapter 2 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 to ensure environment protection.
The effect of the amendment was to provide the grounds in support as being matters set out in the original Points of Claim, now annexed to the Amended Summons. This document contained 41 paragraphs and accompanying particularisation. It is 13 pages long (a copy of the Points of Claim is Annexure A to these reasons).
[4]
Subsequent procedural steps
On 5 June 2020, the EPA filed its Points of Defence. At par 9 of this document, the EPA asserted its reliance on a 24-page list of policy documents (containing 300 document titles) forming Annex A to its Points of Defence. The list was described as demonstrating that "the EPA has discharged the duty in s 9(1) (a) of the [Protection of the Environment] Administration Act by exercising its powers from time to time to develop environmental quality objectives, guidelines and policies to ensure environmental protection". The list was noted as being inclusive and not exhaustive.
On 11 June 2020, Bushfire Survivors served the EPA with a Notice to Admit Facts. This document contained 73 "facts" with which the EPA was asked to agree. As later discussed, some of the "facts" were expressed as opinions rather than being matters of fact to which the EPA's agreement could properly be sought using this admission-seeking process.
On 25 June 2020, the EPA provided a Notice Disputing Facts in response to Bushfire Survivors' Notice. The EPA's Notice was in the formal, laconic form required for such a document. However, by letter also dated 25 June, the EPA provided Bushfire Survivors with a more discursive response (of some six pages), fleshing out the reasons for the responses given in the formal reply Notice.
On 28 September 2020, Bushfire Survivors filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to adduce expert evidence in these proceedings. The expert evidence proposed to traverse a somewhat lengthy list of enumerated elements contained in Bushfire Survivors' Points of Claim and in its Notice to Admit Facts. In this motion, the topics were not immediately set out in any discernibly coherent fashion.
[5]
The Notice of Motion hearings
Bushfire Survivors' Notice of Motion was heard by me on 15, 20 and 23 October 2020. The hearings were held, as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, using Microsoft Teams software without the necessity for any physical attendance in the courtroom. They were conducted in accordance with the Court's COVID-19 Pandemic Arrangements Policy.
Bushfire Survivors were represented by Mr G Kennett SC and Mr D Hume, barrister. The EPA was represented by Mr O Jones, barrister, for the substantive elements of these hearings (the third occasion being, effectively, a formal process to finalise those matters arising from what had occurred on the two earlier occasions).
[6]
The approach to be taken here
Although, in proceedings such as these, caution will need to be exercised by a trial judge in approaching the exercise of functions by a body such as the EPA (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 40-41) and there have been differing approaches taken concerning the appropriateness of permitting reliance on expert evidence in some Class 4 proceedings (Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group Inc v Dart Energy Ltd (No 2) (2013) 195 LGERA 229; [2013] NSWLEC 38), I am nonetheless satisfied that, at least at these initial stages, leave is appropriate to be granted to Bushfire Survivors to file and serve expert evidence upon which it would seek to rely.
As Molesworth AJ observed in Help Save Mt Gilead Inc v Mount Gilead Pty Limited [2018] NSWLEC 88, at [42], when permitting the preparation and filing of such evidence, questions of admissibility of such evidence remain a matter for the trial judge.
[7]
When "facts" are not facts but are contestable opinions
An example of the problem arising from the Bushfire Survivors' Notice to Admit Facts can be seen from what was set out in it, at par 10, where the "fact" to which agreement was sought was a proposition in the following terms:
10 Unregulated release of greenhouse gases is the greatest threat to the environment of NSW.
It was clear from the inclusion of the word "greatest" in the example above that this "fact" was, truly, an expression of an opinion - an opinion which was capable of being the subject of contest, given the nature of the proceedings which Bushfire Survivors has commenced against the EPA.
[8]
The position at the end of the interlocutory hearings
During the course of the Notice of Motion hearings, Bushfire Survivors proposed an Amended Notice of Motion. The scope of evidence in the proposed Amended Notice of Motion was somewhat better structured than had originally been proposed but was not, as I observed to the representatives of the parties, in a form that I could consider appropriate as providing sufficient clarity and direction for the scope of expert evidence capable of being given leave for potential reliance at trial.
As a consequence, in an iterative process, discussion took place concerning what might be the nature of propositions and/or questions which might provide an acceptable basis upon which I might consider the granting of leave to Bushfire Survivors to file and serve expert evidence upon which they could seek to rely at the substantive hearing. No objection to this iterative process was raised on behalf of the EPA.
After the conclusion of the first two hearings noted above at [10], a proposed Further Amended Notice of Motion was provided to me with attached draft propositions/questions to be addressed by Professor Sackett. It was proposed, on behalf of Bushfire Survivors, that I should give leave for the filing and serving of expert evidence from Professor Sackett on the following propositions/questions:
1 Unregulated release of greenhouse gases is the greatest threat to the environment and people of N.S.W. as anthropogenic climate change has the potential to adversely and irreversibly alter all aspects of the natural environment.
2 To what extent have anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions caused a long-term increase in extreme fire and in the length or the fire season, across Australia.
3 Whether and why the world is or is not on target to achieve a global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
4 Whether and why the current emissions reduction trajectory for Australia is or is not in line with and appropriate to limiting global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
5 Whether and why the current emissions reduction trajectory for New South Wales is or is not in line with and appropriate to limiting global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
6 Whether or not (and why) the objectives, guidelines and policies identified by the Respondent:
(a) regulate or reduce direct and indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions in a manner consistent with global temperature rise being limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels and
(b) are fit for purpose in protecting or mitigating against the threat posed by climate change to the quality of the environment and the people of New South Wales
[9]
Consideration
My preliminary reaction to the matters set out in Bushfire Survivors' Points of Claim and Notice to Admit Facts, and in the formal and informal reply documents from the EPA, was twofold.
First, the nature of the matters set out in these documents contained, in their terms, likely scope for significant further pre-trial interlocutory disputation which was potentially able to be cured (or if not cured, at least limited) by giving Bushfire Survivors leave to seek to rely on expert evidence (if such expert evidence was prepared on the basis of a limited number of more specifically framed topics posed as specific propositions and/or questions).
In this context, of course, any leave being granted by me to permit the filing and serving of such more focused expert evidence would be a determination of a very preliminary nature - with questions of admissibility and relevance necessarily awaiting determination by the trial judge at the time when Bushfire Survivors sought to tender such evidence.
Second, as observed at [6], the EPA's Points of Defence had annexed to it a 24-page list of documents (containing the titles of 300 documents of a policy nature) advanced by the EPA as demonstrating the invalidity of the implicitly omnibus complaint levelled at the EPA by Bushfire Survivors concerning the broad area of policy responses to climate change.
To the extent that expert evidence had, at least inherently, some potential to provide a more focused (but nonetheless sufficiently broad) canvas for the consideration of the issues involved, I was of the view that permitting the filing and serving of such evidence had significant potential to provide assistance to the trial judge (leaving, of course, determination of admissibility to that trial judge when the substantive hearing eventually took place).
It has always been my view that, if a sporting analogy was ever appropriate to be adopted for litigation as is involved in these proceedings, such an analogy would be with a game of tennis - with the length and intensity of the (forensic) rallies being, in part, dependent on the evidence advanced and the replies to it and, also in part, on the skill of the analysis and submission of the advocates on behalf the parties.
The nature of the opening skirmish demonstrated by Bushfire Survivors' Points of Claim and Notice to Admit Facts, and the formal and informal responses to them from the EPA, evidence that, at least at this preliminary stage, tennis was an inapt sporting analogy, and that golf might be a better one - with, at the present time, the parties playing different holes, with one being on the front nine of the course, with the other to be seen, figuratively, to be playing on the back nine of that course. Thus, there was not immediately apparent a coherent and appropriately defined "match" or contest between the parties.
[10]
The form of my orders
As a consequence, I made orders granting Bushfire Survivors leave to rely on the Further Amended Notice of Motion and, thus, granting leave to file and serve expert evidence:
1. From the specifically nominated expert (Professor Penny Sackett);
2. On the six set out propositions/questions as amended by me;
3. Subject to the right of the EPA being permitted to seek leave to rely on expert evidence in reply from its own (to be nominated) expert if the EPA considered that this was an appropriate course for it to follow; and
4. Subject, also, to the general reservation of the EPA's rights to press matters of admissibility and relevance with respect to Bushfire Survivors' expert evidence when the matter proceeded to trial.
For completeness in understanding this decision, a copy of the orders as signed by me (together with the annexed propositions/questions in the form modified as discussed above) are reproduced as Annexure B to this decision.
[11]
Annexure B
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 04 November 2020
Orders granted: Applicant (Bushfire Survivors) was given leave to file and serve expert evidence from Professor Penny Sackett on six specified propositions/questions, amended to require the expert to address how matters would impact the environment of New South Wales; the EPA's right to seek leave to file expert evidence in reply was preserved; the EPA's rights to challenge admissibility and relevance at trial were also reserved [31].
The EPA's position on these questions, was, as I understood it, that it did not accept that expert evidence would necessarily assist in the proceedings, but that, if leave was to be given by me, the propositions/questions set out above were ones to which it did not express objections as to their formulation. In this context, it is to be observed that the EPA's position as to admissibility and relevance of such evidence as might arise from expert opinion concerning those propositions/questions was expressly reserved (a position with which Bushfire Survivors' representatives did not demur).
It was my assessment that granting leave to Bushfire Survivors to file and serve expert evidence (with the EPA having the opportunity, after this had occurred, to consider whether or not it wished to engage its own expert in reply) provided at least the opportunity for the trial judge to be presented with a more coherent framework for addressing the underlying issues of complaint arising in these proceedings.
When the propositions/questions set out at [18] came before me on 26 October 2020 with the proposal that I grant leave for Bushfire Survivors to rely on a Further Amended Notice of Motion permitting it to file and serve evidence on the basis of them, I indicated to the parties that I was not satisfied with the broad (and apparently unconfined) scope of questions (2) to (5) as there set out.
I indicated that, in the terms formulated, each of those questions did not incorporate any qualification to ensure that they caused the expert witness to address, with sufficient specificity, matters within the statutory jurisdiction of this Court. I indicated that I was only prepared to grant leave if the words "and how that would impact on the environment of New South Wales" were added at the end of each of those four questions.
It was then indicated for Bushfire Survivors that there was no objection to the adding of that framing phrase as I proposed. A similar position was adopted on behalf of the EPA (but being a position subject to retention of the broad caveat, earlier discussed, for which the EPA's attitude was reserved).