Krajniw v Newman [2014] FCA 1454

Krajniw v Newman [2014] FCA 1454

The applicant did not adduce evidence establishing a sufficient prima facie case for final relief nor evidence that the respondents' conduct breached the EPBC Act or affected protected species; therefore, the interlocutory injunction was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Tony Krajniw; First Respondent: Campbell Newman MP Premier; Second Respondent: Andrew Powell Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection; Third Respondent: Aarron Dillaway MP; Fourth Respondent: Jon Black Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection; Fifth Respondent: Dean Ellwood Deputy Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection; Sixth Respondent: Tamara O'Shea Deputy Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection; Seventh Respondent: Tony Roberts Deputy Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection; Eighth Respondent: Ian Stewart Police Commissioner; Ninth Respondent: Graham Quirk - Mayor Brisbane City Council; Tenth Respondent: Brisbane City Council; Eleventh Respondent: Colin Jensen Chief Executive Brisbane City Council; Twelfth Respondent: Ryan Murphy - Councillor Brisbane City Council; Thirteenth Respondent: Michael Lawson Regional Coordinator Natural Environment East Brisbane City Council; Fourteenth Respondent: Ken Edie Technical Arboriculture Officer Brisbane City Council; Fifteenth Respondent: Mick Maher Natural Environment Technical Officer Brisbane City Council; Sixteenth Respondent: Craig Hardy - Ranger Brisbane City Council; Seventeenth Respondent: Brisbane Tree Services
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; costs order made against applicant for part of respondents.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Environmental Law Interlocutory Injunctions Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Krajniw

Applicant

Campbell Newman MP Premier

First Respondent

Andrew Powell Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection

Second Respondent

Aarron Dillaway MP

Third Respondent

Jon Black Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection

Fourth Respondent

Dean Ellwood Deputy Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection

Fifth Respondent

Tamara O'Shea Deputy Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection

Sixth Respondent

Tony Roberts Deputy Director General Department Environment and Heritage Protection

Seventh Respondent

Ian Stewart Police Commissioner

Eighth Respondent

Graham Quirk - Mayor Brisbane City Council

Ninth Respondent

Brisbane City Council

Tenth Respondent

Colin Jensen Chief Executive Brisbane City Council

Eleventh Respondent

Ryan Murphy - Councillor Brisbane City Council

Twelfth Respondent

Michael Lawson Regional Coordinator Natural Environment East Brisbane City Council

Thirteenth Respondent

Ken Edie Technical Arboriculture Officer Brisbane City Council

Fourteenth Respondent

Mick Maher Natural Environment Technical Officer Brisbane City Council

Fifteenth Respondent

Craig Hardy - Ranger Brisbane City Council

Sixteenth Respondent

Brisbane Tree Services

Seventeenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a sufficient prima facie case for interlocutory injunctive relief under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of interlocutory injunction against the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not adduce evidence establishing a sufficient prima facie case for final relief nor evidence that the respondents' conduct breached the EPBC Act or affected protected species; therefore, the interlocutory injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; costs order made against applicant for part of respondents.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for interlocutory relief contained in the originating application filed 5 November 2014 is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the ninth to sixteenth respondents' (inclusive) costs of and incidental to the application.