Australians for Sustainable Development Inc v Minister for Planning (No 2)

In this case, Australians for Sustainable Development Inc (the Applicant) sought judicial review of decisions made by the Minister for Planning (the First Respondent) in relation to a planning permit. The Second and Third Respondents were the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Sustainability and Environment, respectively. The Applicant argued that the decisions were unlawful due to procedural errors and a failure to properly consider relevant environmental factors. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the decisions of the Minister for Planning were made in accordance with the proper procedures and whether the relevant environmental considerations had been adequately taken into account. The Applicant contended that the decisions were flawed due to procedural errors, including a failure to properly advertise the planning permit applications and to provide adequate notice to interested parties. Additionally, the Applicant argued that the environmental impacts of the proposed development had not been sufficiently assessed.

The court found that the decisions of the Minister for Planning were indeed flawed due to procedural errors. The court held that there had been insufficient advertising of the planning permit applications and inadequate notice to interested parties, which amounted to a failure to comply with the relevant statutory requirements. Furthermore, the court found that the environmental considerations had not been properly evaluated, as the relevant impact assessments had not been adequately addressed. As a result, the court granted the Applicant's application for judicial review, setting aside the decisions of the Minister for Planning. The court also ordered the First Respondent to pay 75% of the Applicant's costs, except for costs relating to expert evidence on an indemnity basis, while the Second and Third Respondents were ordered to pay 75% of the Applicant's costs, except for costs relating to expert evidence. Additionally, the Applicant was ordered to pay the Second and Third Respondents' costs of responding to the Applicant's expert evidence.