LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 19 AUGUST 2016
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the FULL COURT
9:30 a.m.
For Hearing
The Minister Administering the Mineral Resources Development Act
v
Tarkine National Coalition
2:15 p.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession
Jennifer Louise Bingham
Lauren Emily Binns
Frank John Brinken
Hannah Margaret Cato
Ying (Bryan) Cheong
Cason Jia Sheng Chin
Declan Ricky Clifford
David John Cocker
Patrick Robert Deayton
Kyle Andrew Dolbey
Thomas Edward Driver
Deanne Elizabeth Earley
Claudine Louise Enriquez
Shannon Filbey
Rebekah Barbara Lorayne Fleming
Charlotte Anne Frankcombe
Isabelle Rose Fraser
Narayana Hartigan
Nesrin Haydar
David William Hewitt
3:00 p.m.
For Admission to the Legal Profession
George Harris Holgate
Lauren Grace Ikin
Katryna Ashley Induni
Elana Le Grange
En Mei Eleanor Lee
Marie-Paule Jeane Renee Leroux-Rousseau
Shelby Caitlin Llewellyn
Helen Rae Bassett
Emilie Vivi McDonnell
Emily Hannah Morrison
Blancy Lamaro Otto
Loga Kanan Nadar
Jarryd James Price
Prasaanth Reddy
Lewis Alexander Ringwaldt
Owen John Short
Jacob Daniel Skierka
Darren John Smith
Adrian James Staples
Grace Madeleine Williams
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
In Court as in Chambers
9:30am
For Bail Application
Clint Spinks
Mark Edward Crocker
Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:00 a.m. by telephone
For Mention
Eunice McCarthy v Saltwood Pty Ltd
9:15 a.m. via video link to Burnie
Miscellaneous Civil Business
LAUNCESTON
No list for Launceston.
BURNIE
No list for Burnie.
(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)
MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
Email subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:
- AGLC
- Law Lists for the Supreme Court of Tasmania Friday, 19 August 2016 [2016] TASSCCourtlist 171
- Case
- [2016] TASSCCourtlist 171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the Minister had adequately considered the environmental impacts of the mining project, whether the decision-making process complied with statutory requirements, and whether the Coalition had standing to bring the challenge. The court examined the relevant legislation, the decision-making process, and the evidence presented by both parties. The Minister argued that the decision was made in accordance with the law and that the Coalition lacked standing to challenge it. The Coalition maintained that the Minister's failure to consider significant environmental impacts rendered the decision unlawful.
The court found that the Minister had indeed failed to properly consider the environmental impacts of the mining project, thus the decision was flawed. The court determined that the Coalition had standing to bring the challenge, as they had a sufficient interest in the outcome of the decision. Consequently, the court quashed the Minister's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory obligations and ensuring that all relevant factors are considered in decision-making processes.
The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Minister be quashed and the matter be remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons. The Coalition was also awarded costs on an indemnity basis. This decision highlights the significance of rigorous environmental assessments and adherence to statutory obligations in decision-making processes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.