Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Keil v Minister of Natural Resources and Environment

Pays/Territoire
Samoa
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Oct 21, 2003
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court
Siège de la cour
Apia
Juge
C.J. DOHERTY
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Terre et sols
Mot clé
Évaluation des ressources/des dommages Accès-à-la-justice
Résumé

The First Defendant in the case, the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, consented to an application from the Second Defendants, Kyle and Adele Keil, to reclaim part of the foreshore adjacent to their land. The Plaintiff, William Keil, sought judicial review of that decision as a neighbour. He sought to have the decision declared invalid and void, an order to quash the decision through an order of certiorari and a writ of injunction to restrain the second defendants from placing any rock, fill or material within the foreshore and coastal waters next to his land or to continue any reclamation whatsoever next to his land.

The Act that the decision was taken under is devoted to conservation of the environment. The Minister should, according to the Act, manage the conservation and protection of the environment and regulate development. The Minister also has the function to assess the environmental implications of projects and proposals and reclamation works should be preceded by consent by the Minister.

The plaintiff meant that the Act could not be applied as to permit the reclamation of the foreshore as it was meant to protect the environment and that the defendants had failed to consider the impact on the environment. Moreover the plaintiff meant that the decision had not been sufficiently reasoned. The plaintiff therefore claimed the decision to be unreasonable and irrational. The Second Defendants, on the other hand, stated that they had to reclaim the area adjacent to their house to protect it from further damage that was started by a cyclone. They also meant that the plaintiff did not have legal standing. The latter was immediately refuted by the Court and the case was tried.

The Court concluded that the defendant did not have an obligation to give reasons for the decision. Neither did the Court find the decision to be illegal, unreasonable or irrational and the first defendant had access to environmental information when making the decision.

Texte intégral
Keil v Minister of Natural Resources and Environment [2003].pdf