• Skip to main content
  • Home
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Non-US
  • Non-U.S. Litigation
  • U.S. Litigation
  • Home
  • U.S. Litigation
  • Non-U.S. Litigation
  • Search
    • Search US
    • Search Non-US
  • About
  • Contact

Gray v. Minister for Planning and Ors

“152 LGERA 258”

Filing Date: 2006
Status: Decided
Case Categories:
  • Suits against governments
    • Environmental assessment and permitting
      • Natural resource extraction
Jurisdictions:
  • Australia
    • New South Wales
      • Land and Environment Court
Principal Laws:
  • Australia
    • Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)
Summary:

This case dealt with a challenge to the Minister’s approval of an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed Anvil Hill Project coal mine, which was expected to produce about 10.5 million tons of thermal coal for domestic and foreign power plants annually for 21 years. That EA considered the mine’s expected Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions, but not its Scope 3 emissions. The court declared that approval void on the grounds that it was at odds with the language of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 and with the principles of precaution and intergenerational equity—“the environmental assessment must be broad, as a matter of law.” These, contrary to the Minister’s view, warranted consideration of Scope 3 emissions given the circumstances of the mine and the sufficient degree of evident causation between its Scope 3 emissions and adverse environmental impacts in New South Wales.

At Issue: Consideration of Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions in EIA for planned coal mine
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Summary
11/27/2006 Decision Download No summary available.

© 2019 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

These materials are intended to be a useful resource and may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. They are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.

This website uses cookies as well as similar tools and technologies to understand visitors' experiences. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University's usage of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice.OkColumbia University Website Cookie Notice