20 Nov 2020
The applicant failed to promptly withdraw the application for leave such that respondents were entitled and required to file notices of opposition within the deadline; that conduct caused respondents to incur costs which the court ordered the applicant to pay, the amounts being appropriate on the scale for the work involved.
8 May 2012
The Minister misapplied s 5(6)(d) by failing to take into account the wider countervailing benefits of the proposed marine reserve (including benefits beyond the precise area) when deciding whether interference or adverse effects on existing recreational use were excessive or unjustified; the Minister's decision is quashed and the s 5(6)(d) assessment must be reconsidered to include the wider merits, although the Court found the available information was not so inadequate as to preclude the Minister being satisfied on the facts.