Mees v David Kemp in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2005] FCAFC 5

Mees v David Kemp in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage [2005] FCAFC 5

The Minister's statement of reasons complied with s 13 of the ADJR Act; any challenge to sufficiency of reasons had no effect on the time limit for judicial review, which ran from provision of the original reasons. Discretion not to extend time for review application was not challenged. The findings of Gray J did not constitute 'substantial new information' for the purposes of s 78(1)(a) of the EPBC Act. The hypothetical possibility of consequential action (freeway link) did not require consideration as an adverse impact under s 75. Appeal dismissed.

Parties
Appellant (applicant): Paul Andrew Mees; First Respondent: David Kemp in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage; Second Respondent: Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From the Federal Court (weinberg J) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Sufficiency of Reasons for Decision, Extension of Time to Apply for Review, Standing to Seek Reconsideration, Controlled Action Under EPBC Act, Substantial New Information for Review of Decision
Administrative Law Environment Law Judicial Review Sufficiency of Reasons for Decision Extension of Time to Apply for Review Standing to Seek Reconsideration Controlled Action Under EPBC Act Substantial New Information for Review of Decision

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Andrew Mees

Appellant (applicant)

David Kemp in his capacity as Minister for the Environment and Heritage

First Respondent

Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From the Federal Court (weinberg J) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Minister's reasons for decision complied with s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether time limit for filing for judicial review began to run based on sufficiency of Minister's reasons
  3. 3 Whether findings of Gray J in Mees v Roads Corporation [2003] FCA 306 constituted 'substantial new information' under s 78 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's statement of reasons complied with s 13 of the ADJR Act; any challenge to sufficiency of reasons had no effect on the time limit for judicial review, which ran from provision of the original reasons. Discretion not to extend time for review application was not challenged. The findings of Gray J did not constitute 'substantial new information' for the purposes of s 78(1)(a) of the EPBC Act. The hypothetical possibility of consequential action (freeway link) did not require consideration as an adverse impact under s 75. Appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The time limited for filing the notice of appeal is extended to 21 May 2004.
  • The appeal be dismissed.