Triabunna Investments Pty Ltd v Minister for Environment and Energy [2019] FCAFC 60 (15 April 2019) (Besanko, Flick and Mortimer JJ) - 13wentworthselbornechambers
16606
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16606,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

Triabunna Investments Pty Ltd v Minister for Environment and Energy [2019] FCAFC 60 (15 April 2019) (Besanko, Flick and Mortimer JJ)


Catchwords:


ENVIRONMENT LAW — application for judicial review of a referral decision made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) — where the second respondent lodged a proposal with the Department of Environment and Energy to farm Atlantic salmon on an existing marine lease — where a delegate of the Minister for Environment and Energy decided under s 75 of the Act that the proposed action was not a “controlled action” if undertaken in a “particular manner” within the meaning of s 77A of the Act — where the delegate issued a written notice under s 77(1) of the Act and a statement of reasons under s 77(4) of the Act — where the delegate provided the statement of reasons to the appellants in accordance with s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

ENVIRONMENT LAW — whether the primary judge erred in finding that the delegate, having made all the necessary findings, did not err in law by failing to include in the notice issued under s 77 of the Act the conclusion that the use of K-Grid and of bundled feed and servicing lines by the second respondent were “particular manner” requirements — whether the primary judge erred in confining the operation of s 77A(1) to matters additional to that which was contained in the second respondent’s original proposal — whether the primary judge erred in finding that the delegate did not err by failing to take into account all “adverse impacts” of the proposed action as required by s 75(2) of the Act — where the primary judge inferred from the delegate’s reasons that the delegate had considered the visual impact of two permanently moored barges — whether the primary judge erred in failing to deal with the appellants’ contentions about how the delegate’s decision addressed the use of bundled feed and servicing lines by the second respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — whether the primary judge erred in failing to give adequate reasons for rejecting certain contentions made by the appellants — whether the primary judge erred by mischaracterising and incorrectly describing certain arguments advanced by the appellants