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

Powelliphanta Augustus Incorporated (formerly Save Happy Valley Coalition Incorporated), Appellant, and Solid Energy New Zealand Limited, First Respondent, and Buller District Council, Second Respondent, and West Coast Regional Council, Third Respondent

Pays/Territoire
Nouvelle-Zélande
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Avr 30, 2007
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of New Zealand
Juge
Panckhurst
Numéro de référence
CIV-2006-409-002993
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Ressources minérales, Questions juridiques
Mot clé
Licence d'exploitation minière Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives
Résumé
Solid Energy New Zealand mined the Mt Augustus ridgeline pursuant to a coal mining licence granted to its predecessor under the Coal Mines Act 1979. The appellant sought to prevent Solid Energy from continuing to mine the ridgeline of Mt Augustus in a manner which would endanger the Powelliphanta Augustus snails, some of which were threatened with extinction, and their habitat. The court had to decide whether the enforcement powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) were available against the holder of a coal mining licence. The lower Environment Court had previously held that it had no jurisdiction to invoke the enforcement powers under the RMA against Solid Energy because the coal mining license had been granted to the predecessor under the Coal Mines Act 1979, and because of a transitional provision in the Crown Minerals Act 1991. In 1991 both the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) came into force, with the result that an entirely new regime for mining minerals in New Zealand became effective. However, s107 of the Crown Minerals Act provided for “existing privileges to continue”. Coal mining licences were within the definition of “existing privileges”. The court interpreted s107 Crown Minerals Act in the context of the Mining Act 1971, the Coal Mines Act 1979 and the RMA. In conclusion, it agreed with the Environment Court that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Appellant.
Texte intégral
jdo.justice.govt.nz

Références

Cite

Convention sur la diversité biologique

Traité | Multilatéral | Rio de Janeiro |

Mot clé: Règlement des différends, Cultures/pâtures, Monitorage, Recherche, Politique/planification, Conservation ex situ, Institution, Financement, Biodiversité, Éducation, Biotechnologie, Transfert de technologie, EIA, Espèces exotiques, Accès et partage des avantages, Subvention/incitation, Gestion/conservation, Responsabilité/indemnisation, Collecte de données/déclarations, Ressources génétiques, Aire protégée, Protection de l'habitat, Utilisation durable, Droits traditionnels/droits coutumiers, Préservation de l'écosystème

Source: IUCN (ID: TRE-001148)

Cite

Resource Management Act 1991 (No. 69 of 1991).

Législation | Nouvelle-Zélande | 1991 (2022)

Mot clé: Législation de base, Eaux usées/déversement, Pollution du sol/qualité, Gestion des zones côtières, Aire protégée, Zone de conservation des eaux, Eaux continentales, Planification territoriale, Autorisation/permis, Eaux superficielles, Eaux souterraines, EIA, Protection de l’environnement, Changement de climat, Utilisation durable, Aquaculture, Mariculture, Gestion des resources en eau douce, Eaux thermales et médicinales, Ouvrages, Lutte contre la pollution, Développement durable, Prélèvement d'eau, Engrais/nutriments, Pollution des eaux douces, Biodiversité, Droits traditionnels/droits coutumiers, Préservation de l'écosystème, Faune sauvage, Flore sauvage

Source: FAO, FAOLEX