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

Haughton v. Minister for Department of Planning and Others

Reporter Info: [2011] NSWLEC 217 (Australia)
Status: Application dismissed
Case Categories:
  • Suits against governments
    • Environmental assessment and permitting
      • Utilities
Jurisdictions:
  • Australia
    • New South Wales
      • Land and Environment Court
Principal Laws:
  • Australia
    • Precautionary Principle
  • Australia
    • Principle of Intergenerational Equity
Summary:

Ned Haughton challenged the approval granted by the Minister for Planning for two coal-fired power plants. The challenge was on the grounds that: (1) the Minister erroneously approved the plants on the basis that they were critical infrastructure projects; (2) the Minister had not fully considered the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and (3) the Minister had not considered the impact of the projects on climate change, which was required of him based on his duty to protect the public interest. While the Court upheld the standing of Mr. Haughton to bring the case, it dismissed his substantive claims on the basis that the decisions had been made within the power given to the Minister under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW). Justice Craig emphasized that he could not review the merits of the Minister’s decision, and could only consider its legality. He concluded that the statute allowed the Minister to weigh competing considerations as he saw fit when determining what was in the public interest.

At Issue: Challenge to government approval of two coal-fired power plants
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Summary
12/02/2011 Decision Download No summary available.

© 2023 · Sabin Center for Climate Change Law · U.S. Litigation Chart made in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

The materials on this website are intended to provide a general summary of the law and do not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.