Gray v. Minister for Planning
New South Wales Land and Environment Court
[2006] NSWLEC 720
- Written by Andrea Smith, JD
Facts
Centennial Hunter Pty Ltd (Centennial) (defendant) wanted to build a large coal mine. Centennial prepared an environmental assessment of the mine project and submitted the assessment to the director-general of the Department of Planning. The assessment contained an analysis of greenhouse gases likely to be directly generated by the mine but did not include an evaluation of indirect emissions generated by, for example, burning the coal extracted. The director-general decided that the assessment adequately addressed the relevant requirements. Peter Gray, a member of a community climate-change organization, brought suit, seeking a declaration that the director-general’s decision was void and without effect. Gray argued that Centennial’s assessment did not comply with the requirements set by the director-general, which included a detailed greenhouse-gas assessment. The director-general argued that the assessment did comply with the requirements because indirect emissions would only occur with voluntary human action and were thus uncertain. Gray also argued that the director-general failed to consider the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity when deciding to accept the assessment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.