Anzbrook Pty Ltd v Minister For The Environment, Heritage And The Arts. Pays/Territoire Australie Type de cour Autres Date Jan 22, 2010 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Federal Magistrates Court of Australia Siège de la cour Sydney Juge Wilson. Numéro de référence [2010] FMCA 34 Langue Anglais Sujet Questions juridiques, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes Mot clé Mise en application Mise en application au niveau national/transposition Accord international-mise en oeuvre Résumé On 14 April 2009 Cairns Marine Aquarium Fish lodged an application in the Federal Magistrates Court for review of the minister's decision to refuse to grant a permit to export CITES II listed freshwater sawfish to an aquarium in Dubai. Cairns Marine's application included a number of grounds, including claims that there was a breach of natural justice and that the minister erred in law. The matter was heard in the Cairns Federal Magistrate's Court. The Federal Magistrate quashed the minister's decision and remitted it back for a new decision. Among other things, the Federal Magistrate found that there had not been a breach of procedural fairness, though the minister had erred in law in making his decision. The respondent has conflated the two matters about which he was required to be satisfied. He seems to have concluded that the Dubai Aquarium and Discovery Centre was not an appropriate and acceptable aquarium because the display in that aquarium was not likely to be for primarily conservation purposes. Rather, the respondent should have separately answered the two questions. There was no consideration of whether the receiving aquarium was an appropriate and acceptable facility to house the swordfish. The purpose of the display was not relevant to this enquiry. Rather, the respondent was required to separately consider the facility itself, and its suitability as a separate enquiry. Therefore, the decision making process undertaken by the respondent was flawed, in that he failed to consider a relevant matter. The application for an export permit ought to be considered by the respondent according to law. The decision of 27 January 2009 must be quashed. Texte intégral COU-156676.pdf