Williams v Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service and Ors. [2002] NSWLEC 91

Williams v Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service and Ors. [2002] NSWLEC 91

The Applicant's claim raises an arguable case but is not 'self-evidently strong' on the present materials; the permit was facially valid, authorising only collection and protection, not destruction of relics. Balance of convenience, considering substantial financial prejudice to Respondents and the limited legal strength of the Applicant’s claim, does not favour granting an interlocutory injunction.

Parties
Applicant: Neville Williams; First Respondent: Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service; Second Respondent: Barrick Gold of Australia Limited ACN 008 143 137; Third Respondent: Homestake Australia Limited ACN 007 857 598; Fourth Respondent: Colin Pardoe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused; claims to interlocutory relief dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Permit Validity, Procedural Fairness, Balance of Convenience, Racial Discrimination
Administrative Law Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Law Environmental Law Interlocutory Injunctions Permit Validity Procedural Fairness Balance of Convenience Racial Discrimination

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neville Williams

Applicant

Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service

First Respondent

Barrick Gold of Australia Limited ACN 008 143 137

Second Respondent

Homestake Australia Limited ACN 007 857 598

Third Respondent

Colin Pardoe

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Application / Interlocutory (application for Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a permit under s 87 of National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 is invalid
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was denied in issuing the permit
  3. 3 Whether the permit exceeded the scope of s 87 and amounted to a de facto s 90 consent

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's claim raises an arguable case but is not 'self-evidently strong' on the present materials; the permit was facially valid, authorising only collection and protection, not destruction of relics. Balance of convenience, considering substantial financial prejudice to Respondents and the limited legal strength of the Applicant’s claim, does not favour granting an interlocutory injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused; claims to interlocutory relief dismissed.

Orders

  • Applicant's claims to interlocutory relief are dismissed.