Winn v Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife

The appeal concerned a dispute between the appellant, Winn, and the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife, regarding alleged breaches of conditions attached to a development consent for mining operations. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales before Spigelman CJ, Powell and Stein JJA.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the provisions of the *Mining Act 1973* and the *Mining Act 1992* conferred immunity upon the respondents from the operation of environmental protection legislation, and the proper interpretation and application of certain conditions of the development consent, specifically conditions 1, 20, and 30, in relation to the conduct of mining operations. The court also considered the availability of remedies under section 124 of the *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979* for alleged breaches of these conditions.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that section 116 of the *Mining Act 1973* did not provide a blanket immunity from all environmental legislation, and that the respondents had not demonstrated that the specific environmental legislation in question was displaced by the mining legislation. The court further found that the primary judge had erred in dismissing the application without adequately considering the evidence relating to the alleged breaches of the development consent conditions. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to determine the scope of the immunity provisions and the nature of the obligations imposed by the development consent conditions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the primary judge, and remitted the proceedings to the Land and Environment Court. The Land and Environment Court was directed to determine whether there had been any breach of conditions 1, 20, and 30 of the development consent concerning the conduct of operations in ML594, and if so, to consider what further orders, if any, should be made under section 124 of the *Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979* to remedy any contravention of that Act arising from such breaches. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.