Waratah Coal Inc v Minister for the Environment Heritage and the Arts. País/Territorio Australia Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Dic 10, 2008 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Federal Court of Australia Sede de la corte Melbourne Juez Collier. Número de referencia [2008] FCA 1870 Idioma Inglés Materia Mar, Recursos minerales, Tierra y suelos, Medio ambiente gen., Cuestiones jurídicas Palabra clave Minería Zonas húmedas Ordenación de áreas costeras Protección del hábitat Resumen This case involves judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia undertaken in 2008 by Waratah Coal Inc against a refusal of a $5.3 billion coal mine, railway and port by the Federal Environment Minister. The proposal was referred on 31 July 2008 to the Minister, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The project involved establishing a major new coal mine, railway and port to export coal for electricity production. The coal was to be sourced from Waratah Coals mining tenements near the town of Alpha in the Galilee Basin, Central Queensland. The proposal involved the construction of a major new coal export port in the Shoalwater and Corio Bay Ramsar wetlands, an undeveloped part of the Queensland coastline though part of a military training area. The area was listed as a wetland of international significance under the Ramsar Convention. The Minister rejected the proposal on 15 September 2008 under s 74B of the EPBC Act, as it would have clearly unacceptable impacts on the internationally recognised Shoalwater and Corio Bay Ramsar wetlands and the high wilderness value of Shoalwater which is acknowledged in its Commonwealth Heritage listing. Waratah Coal applied for judicial review of the Minister's decision, arguing that the decision was invalid because it was outside of the time limit imposed by the EPBC Act. The application for review included a number of grounds, each of which was based on the allegation that because the 'clearly unacceptable' decision was made more than 20 days after the referral was received it was invalid, and the minister must instead make a decision pursuant to section 75 of the EPBC Act that the action is a 'controlled action'. The court rejected the applicant's arguments and dismissed the application with costs. The Judge ruled:"Notwithstanding the detailed submissions of the applicant, a plain reading of the EPBC Act demonstrates clearly that failure of the Minister to comply with a time limit prescribed by the EPBC Act does not affect the validity of a decision under the Act made outside a set time limit, including decisions made under s 74B. No contortion of the legislation or speculation as to the manner in which s 74B is to be construed in the broader context of Ch 4 Pt 7 detracts from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in s 156(3) and s 518(1) EPBC Act [which provide that failure to comply with a time limit set in the Act does not affect the validity of a decision]". Texto completo COU-156679.pdf