Eddie Tarsie for Himself and in his capacity as Ward Councillor of Ward 3, Saidor Local-Level Government and Farina Siga, For Himself and in his capacity as Ward Secretary of Ward 3, Saidor Local-Level Government and Peter Sel and Pommern Incorporated Land Group No 12591 and Sama Melambo for Himself and as Chairman of Pommern Incorporated Land Group No 12591 v Dr Wari Iamo in his capacity as Director of Environment and Department of Environment and Conservation and Mineral Resources Authority and Ramu Nico Management (Mcc) Limited and The Independent State Of Papua New Guinea (2010) N4033

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 27 May 2010
• Citation: (2010) N4033
• Docket Number: OS (JR) NO 225 OF 2010
• Year: 2010

Full Title: OS (JR) NO 225 OF 2010; Eddie Tarsie for Himself and in his capacity as Ward Councillor of Ward 3, Saidor Local-Level Government and Farina Siga, For Himself and in his capacity as Ward Secretary of Ward 3, Saidor Local-Level Government and Peter Sel and Pommern Incorporated Land Group No 12591 and Sama Melambo for Himself and as Chairman of Pommern Incorporated Land Group No 12591 v Dr Wari Iamo in his capacity as Director of Environment and Department of Environment and Conservation and Mineral Resources Authority and Ramu Nico Management (Mcc) Limited and The Independent State Of Papua New Guinea (2010) N4033

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 27 May 2010

JUDICIAL REVIEW—application for leave to seek review of decisions of Director of Environment to grant amendment to environment permit—Environment Act, s71—requirements for granting of leave—whether an arguable case exists—whether there has been undue delay.

The plaintiffs applied for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the Director of Environment to grant an amendment under Section 71 of the Environment Act to an environment permit. The State opposed the granting of leave on two grounds: that there was no arguable case for judicial review and that the application for leave was delayed and failed to meet the requirements of O16, r4 of the National Court Rules.

Held:

(1) There are five requirements for granting of leave to seek judicial review: (a) locus standi; (b) decision must be of a public body; (c) arguable case; (d) exhaustion of administrative remedies; (e) no undue delay.

(2) One of the requirements was not met: (e) no undue delay. Leave was accordingly refused.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Leto Darius v The Commissioner of Police (2001) N2046; Louis Medaing v Minister for Lands and Physical Planning (2010) N3917

1. CANNINGS J: The plaintiffs are seeking leave for judicial review of decisions of the Director of Environment made in November 2007 to grant an amendment to the environment permit for the Ramu Nickel project. The amendment allowed construction to commence on the deep sea tailings placement system.

2. The plaintiffs want the Director’s decision to allow the amendment, and associated decisions made under the Environment Act 2000, quashed. They want to argue that the decisions were made unlawfully, in breach of various provisions of the Environment Act. They require the leave of the court under Order 16, Rule 3 of the National Court Rules to argue this sort of case; and this is a ruling on their application for leave.

3. As I recently stated in Louis Medaing v Minister for Lands and Physical Planning (2010) N3917, when the National Court deals with applications for leave to seek judicial review, five requirements must be met. These were neatly summarised by Kandakasi J in Leto Darius v Commissioner of Police (2001) N2046:

1. He has the locus standi, that is he has sufficient interest in the matter or has a right which is being affected by way of an injury or damage by the decision sought to be reviewed;

2. The decision...