Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (No 2) [2008] FCA 909

Lansen v Minister for Environment and Heritage (No 2) [2008] FCA 909

Given the respondent's enforceable undertaking to restore the river if the applicants succeed, evidence does not support a finding of irreparable harm warranting an interlocutory injunction. The absence of an undertaking as to damages weighs against granting relief, and on balance, it is inappropriate to make the injunctive order sought.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Motion Restraining Conduct Pending Final Judgment / Hearing and Determination of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused; no order on the motion; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999' 'judicial Review' 'balance of Convenience']
['administrative Law' 'environmental Law' 'native Title'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999' 'judicial Review' 'balance of Convenience']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Motion Restraining Conduct Pending Final Judgment / Hearing and Determination of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted restraining works on McArthur River pending judgment' 'Whether there is a serious question to be tried' 'Whether irreparable harm would be suffered' 'Balance of convenience—absence of undertaking as to damages']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the respondent's enforceable undertaking to restore the river if the applicants succeed, evidence does not support a finding of irreparable harm warranting an interlocutory injunction. The absence of an undertaking as to damages weighs against granting relief, and on balance, it is inappropriate to make the injunctive order sought.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused; no order on the motion; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['No order on the motion of the applicants of 29 April 2008' 'Costs of the motion be reserved']