WILLIAMS v DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL PARKS & WILDLIFE SERVICE & ORS [2002] NSWCA 176

WILLIAMS v DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL PARKS & WILDLIFE SERVICE & ORS [2002] NSWCA 176

The applicant raised a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of the permit, but this was not a strong case for interlocutory relief. The trial judge correctly balanced the applicant's concerns about spiritual and cultural harm and potential statutory invalidity against the respondents' substantial and ongoing financial prejudice. No error of principle or substantial injustice was demonstrated in the trial judge's refusal of interlocutory relief, and therefore, leave to appeal was properly refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'injunction' 'permits Under National Parks and Wildlife Act' 'balance of Convenience' 'procedural Fairness' 'aboriginal Relics' 'statutory Construction']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'injunction' 'permits Under National Parks and Wildlife Act' 'balance of Convenience' 'procedural Fairness' 'aboriginal Relics' 'statutory Construction']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Dismissal of Application for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the refusal to grant interlocutory relief was an error of principle or resulted in substantial injustice' 'Whether the permit issued under s87 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 was invalid on asserted grounds including procedural fairness, bias, irrelevant considerations, and exceeding statutory power' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant raised a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of the permit, but this was not a strong case for interlocutory relief. The trial judge correctly balanced the applicant's concerns about spiritual and cultural harm and potential statutory invalidity against the respondents' substantial and ongoing financial prejudice. No error of principle or substantial injustice was demonstrated in the trial judge's refusal of interlocutory relief, and therefore, leave to appeal was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.']