The proposed expansion garnered numerous objections including one from the Oakey Coal Action Alliance, a local group of farmers. The objections triggered a review process in the Land Court of Queensland, the findings of which are required to be taken into account by the Queensland government in deciding to grant or reject the tenement application. Initially the Land Court made recommendations against the proposed expansion.

The miner applied to the Supreme Court for judicial review, resulting in the matter being sent back to the Land Court. Bowskill J dismissed allegations by the New Acland that the original Land Court decision was invalid due to apprehended bias. Importantly, her Honour purported to exercise a discretion to limit the scope of the referral back, effectively binding the Land Court to the earlier decision.  Second time around, the Land Court recommended accepting the miner’s application, but was limited in what it was able to consider, being bound by the Supreme Court directions. The State Government pressed on with the approval process, on the basis that the requisite Land Court decision had taken place. Oakey Alliance took Bowskill J’s decision to the Court of Appeal and New Acland cross-appealed, arguing that the second Land Court decision was affected by the bias of the original decision. The Court of Appeal declared that there had been procedural unfairness due to bias in the original Land Court decision, but because the horse had bolted there was no utility in unravelling everything.

Oakey Alliance succeeded in its subsequent appeal to the High Court of Australia. In a 5-0 decision, the High Court (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Edelman JJ) held that the discretionary power to make directions when referring a decision back does not extend to authorising the decision maker to act inconsistently with the statute governing their decision-making procedure, or to go beyond their statutory jurisdiction. Once apprehended bias was found, the Court of Appeal should have ordered the process to start from scratch. Edelman J further stated that the fundamental structure of the review process would be undermined if the mere fact that the Land Court had made a recommendation, valid or not, was enough to satisfy the preconditions for the Government decision maker.