Background
Carmen Jackson sought urgent orders restraining the aerial shooting, ground shooting, trapping or killing of wild horses in Yuraygir National Park and Yuraygir State Conservation Area. After learning on 22 August 2026 that a cull was scheduled to begin at 6:00 a.m. on 24 August, she searched unsuccessfully for the statutory authority permitting it. She alleged that, absent a valid authorisation under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), the cull would be unlawful.
Jackson contacted the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the respondent late on Sunday evening, then applied by telephone for ex parte relief in the early hours of 24 August. The Department could not be contacted to appear. At about 2:30 a.m., Pepper J refused the ex parte injunction but stood the motion over until 9:00 a.m. because of the potentially irreversible consequences for the horses and to allow the Department to participate.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that ex parte relief was not justified. Jackson had not given the Department a meaningful opportunity to be heard, despite knowing of the proposed cull since Saturday morning. The Court also found no serious question to be tried: Jackson’s inability to locate an authorising instrument did not support an inference that none existed, and she presented no other basis for concluding that the cull lacked lawful authority.
Although refusing relief would irreversibly harm the horses, the balance of convenience narrowly favoured the Department because personnel, equipment and funds had presumably already been committed and the environmental degradation attributed to the horses was ongoing. On 25 August, however, the Department undertook not to conduct or permit the cull until final determination of the summons. By consent, the motion was dismissed and the substantive proceeding was listed for an expedited final hearing on 9 and 10 September 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Ex parte injunctions are exceptional, and even urgent applicants should provide whatever notice is reasonably possible.
- An applicant’s inability to identify a statutory authorisation does not, without more, establish a serious question that the proposed conduct is unauthorised.
- The Court may refuse immediate injunctive relief yet preserve the dispute through an undertaking and expedited final hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding procedural and evidentiary requirements for obtaining urgent ex parte environmental relief. Irreversible harm alone did not overcome inadequate notice and the absence of an arguable basis for alleging unlawfulness.
It did not finally determine whether the cull was lawful. The Department’s undertaking preserved the horses pending the expedited hearing of Jackson’s judicial-review challenge.