Reported Decision: 152 LGERA 258
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Gray v The Minister for Planning and Ors [2006] NSWLEC 720
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.PARTIES: APPLICANT
Peter Gray
FIRST RESPONDENT
The Minister for Planning
SECOND RESPONDENT
Director-General of the Department of Planning
THIRD RESPONDENT
Centennial Hunter Pty LtdFILE NUMBER(S): 40870 of 2006 CORAM: Pain J KEY ISSUES: Judicial Review :- Whether Director-General legally bound to require greenhouse gas impacts of burning coal by third parties in environmental assessment of new coal mine under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 - whether ecologically sustainable development principles taken into account by Director-General in relation to assessment of adequacy of environmental assessment under Part 3A - whether causation of environmental impact by greenhouse gas emissions caused by third parties burning coal required in environmental assessment of coal mine LEGISLATION CITED: Constitution Act 1902 s35CA
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Pt 3A, s75, s13(2)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994 Pt 1A, cl 8A, cl 8G
Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Interpretation Act 1987 s 3, s11
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991
State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995CASES CITED: Anderson & Anor v Director- General of the Department of Environment and Conservation and Ors (2006)144 LGERA 43 ;
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564;
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v GSF Australia Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 568;
Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353 ;
Bell v Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning and Port Waratah Coal Service Ltd (1997) 95 LGERA 86 ;
Bentley v BGP Properties Pty Ltd (2006) 145 LGERA 243;
BGP Properties v Lake Macquarie Council (2004) 138 LGERA 237;
BT Goldsmith Planning Services Pty Ltd v Blacktown City Council [2005] NSWLEC 210;
Buck v Bavone (1976) 135 CLR 110;
Cranbrook School v Woollahra Council (2006) 146 LGERA 313 ;
Environmental Defence Society Inc v South Pacific Aluminium Ltd (no 4) (1981) 1 NZLR 530 ;
Greenpeace Australia Ltd v Redbank Power Company Pty Ltd (1994) 86 LGERA 143 ;
Greiner v Independent Commission Against Corruption (1992) 28 NSWLR 125;
Kivi v Forestry Commission of NSW (1982) 47 LGRA 38;
Marche v E and MH Stramere Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 ;
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1;
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 ;
Minister for Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc and Another (2004) 139 FCR 24 ;
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259;
Minors Oposa v Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources 33 ILM 174 (1994);
Murrumbidgee Ground-Water…
Continue reading Gray v Minister for Planning
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Gray v Minister for Planning [2006] NSWLEC 720
- Case
- [2006] NSWLEC 720
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Gray v Minister for Planning, the plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision by the Director-General of the Department of Planning. The plaintiff challenged the Director-General's view that an environmental assessment lodged by Centennial Hunter Pty Ltd, concerning the Anvil Hill Project, met the necessary requirements. The dispute ultimately reached the court, which was required to determine the validity of the Director-General's assessment and the procedural fairness of the decision-making process.
The primary legal issues revolved around whether the Director-General's assessment was legally sound and if the process by which the decision was made was fair and just. The plaintiff argued that the environmental assessment was inadequate and that the Director-General's decision-making process was flawed. The central question was whether the Director-General's decision to approve the environmental assessment was reasonable and if the procedural fairness was upheld.
The court found that the Director-General's assessment was not based on proper consideration of the environmental impact and did not address all relevant issues. The court held that the decision-making process lacked procedural fairness, as key information was not properly considered. Consequently, the court declared that the Director-General's view on 23 August 2006 was void and without effect. The court also reserved the question of costs and allowed the exhibits to be returned.
The primary legal issues revolved around whether the Director-General's assessment was legally sound and if the process by which the decision was made was fair and just. The plaintiff argued that the environmental assessment was inadequate and that the Director-General's decision-making process was flawed. The central question was whether the Director-General's decision to approve the environmental assessment was reasonable and if the procedural fairness was upheld.
The court found that the Director-General's assessment was not based on proper consideration of the environmental impact and did not address all relevant issues. The court held that the decision-making process lacked procedural fairness, as key information was not properly considered. Consequently, the court declared that the Director-General's view on 23 August 2006 was void and without effect. The court also reserved the question of costs and allowed the exhibits to be returned.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court makes the following declaration: 1. That the view formed by the Director-General on 23 August 2006 that the environmental assessment lodged by Centennial Hunter Pty Ltd in respect of the Anvil Hill Project adequately addressed the Director-General's requirements is void and without effect. 2. The question of costs is reserved. 3. Exhibits may be returned.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.