Law Lists for the Supreme Court Of Tasmania Thursday, 18 April 2019

LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA THURSDAY, 18 APRIL 2019

HOBART

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before the Full Court
10:00 a.m.
For Hearing
The Honourable Elise Archer, Attorney General
for the State of Tasmania v
Copper Mines of Tasmania Pty Ltd

Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice PEARCE
Civil Jurisdiction
9:45a.m.
For Judgment by Video Link to
Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Clarence City Council
v
Darryl Robert Howlin & Ors

Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT

Criminal Jurisdiction
12:00 p.m.
For Bail Application
Beau Leslie Caulfield

12:30 p.m.
For Bail Application via video link to
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Daniel John Ewell

2:15 p.m.
For Sentence
Tony Leigh McMaster

For Directions Hearing
Brett Langdon Wescombe
Brendan David Cranston

For Sentencing Submissions
JSR
Jamie Leigh Jones

Court 3, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Associate Justice HOLT
Civil Jurisdiction
9:15 a.m.
Miscellaneous Civil Business

LAUNCESTON

Court 2, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:45am For Judgment by Video Link from
Court 2, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Clarence City Council
v
Darryl Robert Howlin & Ors.

Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston

Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction

12:30pm For Bail Application by video link
from Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Daniel John Ewell

BURNIE

NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE

(Note: Initials are used where publication of a person's name is not permitted by law.)

MAGISTRATES COURT LISTS available at:
subscriptions to the law lists of other courts can be requested at:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Attorney General for the State of Tasmania v Copper Mines of Tasmania Pty Ltd was heard. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994, specifically concerning the environmental approval process for mining activities. The legal issues at hand were whether the defendant had correctly followed the statutory procedures and whether the environmental approval granted was valid. The court needed to determine whether the statutory requirements for environmental assessments were adequately met and if the decision to grant the approval was lawful and justified.

The court examined the statutory provisions and the evidence presented to ascertain whether the defendant had complied with the necessary environmental impact assessment protocols. It evaluated whether the approval process was conducted in accordance with the law and whether the decision to grant the approval was supported by sufficient evidence and adhered to the legislative requirements. The court's reasoning focused on the procedural correctness of the approval process and the substantive compliance with environmental standards. It concluded that the statutory procedures were not fully followed, leading to an invalid approval. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the Attorney General, declaring the environmental approval null and void.

The final orders of the court mandated that the invalid environmental approval be rescinded, and the defendant was directed to comply with the statutory requirements for a proper environmental assessment. The court's decision emphasised the importance of adhering to legislative mandates in environmental approvals to ensure sustainable and lawful mining activities.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established