Roe v The Director General, Department of Environment and Conservation for WA

[2011] WASCA 57

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Public interest litigation
4. › Whether unsuccessful party in environmental proceedings should pay costs
5. › Whether public interest character of litigation justified departure from general rule that costs follow the event
6. › Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)
1. Environment and Planning
2. › Environmental impact assessment
3. › Strategic proposal distinguished from significant proposal
4. › Whether proposal referred to EPA was 'significant proposal' or 'strategic proposal'
5. › Whether clearing permit 'related to' proposal
6. › Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), ss 37B, 38, 40B, 41, 51F

Quick Take

A proposal that identifies future proposals which will, if proposed, be significant proposals is a 'strategic proposal' under s 37B(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), and the prohibitions in ss 41 and 51F do not apply to strategic proposals by reason of s 40B(1). The absence of special costs legislation in Western Australia comparable to the NSW Land and Environment Court provisions means that the public interest character of environmental litigation does not, without more, justify departure from the general rule that costs follow the event.