How the North Adelaide Golf Course Redevelopment Began
I recently took on a Federal Court matter for a client challenging the redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course. The parklands many South Australians know as Possum Park, is, without exaggeration, one of the most significant public interest cases running in this state right now. Here is what it is about, and why I think every South Australian should be paying attention.
In 2025, the State Government passed the North Adelaide Golf Course Act, fast-tracking a $45 million redevelopment ahead of the LIV Golf tournament arriving in 2028. The legislation did something unusual: it took planning control of the site away from the Adelaide City Council and handed it to the State.
It also exempted the project from the usual rule that any tree with a trunk over two metres requires planning approval before it can be removed.
“The act also granted planning and building consent to the project before the plans had been released.”
By the time the scale of the works became public, the Government confirmed 585 trees would be removed from the site, with three replacement trees promised for every mature tree felled.
Enter My Client
My client is not a professional activist or a politician. He is a public servant who, alongside a Kaurna Traditional Owner, decided that the project’s environmental approvals deserved proper scrutiny under federal, not just state, law.
Specifically, our case asks the Federal Court to test the redevelopment against the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). The Adelaide Park Lands carry National Heritage status, and the site is also home to the Grey-Headed Flying Fox, a threatened species. Our position is straightforward: a project of this scale, on land of this significance, should not get to mark its own homework.
The State Government’s response was to self-assess the project under the EPBC Act and conclude no formal referral to the Federal Environment Minister was required. We do not accept that a state government should be the sole judge of whether its own project complies with national environmental law. That is precisely the kind of question a court exists to answer.
What the Crown Solicitor Told Us
I will be honest about the pressure involved in a case like this, because I think it matters to the public conversation.
The Crown Solicitor wrote to our office warning that any court order halting works could cost taxpayers in the order of $40,000 a day, separate from legal and expert witness costs. My client was told he could be personally liable for the Government’s legal fees if the case did not succeed.
To his enormous credit, he did not back down. As he put it himself outside court:
“The Premier is not above the law. This is federal environmental law, and we need to hold him accountable to that.”
That is, in essence, the entire case in one sentence.
Where the North Adelaide Golf Course Case Stands Now
The Federal Court has now ruled on the application for an interim injunction. The Court declined to immediately halt all works, meaning earthworks and irrigation preparation can continue while the broader case is heard. It was, in the judge’s own words, a result that would “be unsatisfactory to all concerned” which tells you something about how finely balanced this is.
But the hearing did force real transparency. We now know that 400 trees had already been removed by the time the matter reached court, with a further 185 still marked for felling. The State Government also confirmed to the Court that no further tree removal was planned in the immediate term, while ground works continued.
The broader question is whether this redevelopment complies with national environmental and heritage law and that has not yet been decided. That is the case we are continuing to run.
Why This Case Matters Beyond the Golf Course
I want to be careful here, because this blog is not the place to relitigate the politics of golf tourism versus parklands. But I do think this case raises a question that outlasts any single tree, any single fairway:
When state legislation moves to override established planning protections, who gets to check whether national law has still been followed?
That is not a niche legal technicality. It goes to how power is exercised over public land that belongs to everyone, not just to whichever government happens to be in office when a fast-track bill is drafted.
Whatever the eventual outcome, I believe my client’s willingness to test that question in court, at real personal financial risk, deserves respect, regardless of where anyone lands on the golf course itself.
What This Means If You’re Facing Government Action
This case sits at the unusual end of civil litigation, but the underlying principle shows up in much smaller disputes too. If you believe a decision by a government body, council, or large organisation has not followed the law properly, you are not powerless. Judicial review and injunctive relief exist precisely so that process can be tested, even against well-resourced opponents.
If you are facing a dispute where the other side has more resources, more lawyers, or more apparent authority than you do, that imbalance is not the end of the conversation. It is usually the beginning of one.
Have thoughts on this North Adelaide Gold Course case, or a public interest matter of your own you’d like to discuss confidentially?
Drop a comment below, share this post with someone who has been following the Possum Park saga, or get in touch with our Toorak Gardens office for a free first consultation.
Read more on our blog: Navigating Probate in South Australia and What Happens When Family Court Orders Are Ignored.
Photo by Tara McKenzie
