The Australian Minister for the Environment has a duty to take reasonable care, in the exercise of her powers to approve or reject a proposed coal mining project, to avoid causing personal injury or death to Australian children arising from emissions of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere.
The National Green Tribunal ordered coal mining and energy companies to implement a series of measures to reduce environmental pollution and health impacts associated with their facilities operating in the Tamnar and Charghoda coal blocks in the state of Chhattisgarh. The Tribunal declared that no expansion of mining or industrial activities in the area could be approved until a thorough environmental carrying capacity study is completed.
The High Court of Kenya remanded the environmental license issued for a port project for reconsideration and directed the project proponent to pay Kshs. 1.7 billion in compensation to affected fishing communities who will be impacted by the project. During the reconsideration process, decisionmakers must evaluate the external costs of the port project on the environment and local communities.
In the context of reviewing a planning decision allowing expansion of Dublin’s airport, the High Court of Ireland declared that Ireland’s constitution protects the personal right to an environment that is consistent with the human dignity and well-being of citizens at large.
A court summarily dismissed a defamation action brought against a community member who posted concerns on Facebook about potential contamination from a nearby gravel pit. The community member’s statements were valid expressions related to a matter of public interest.
A utility company violated the Clean Water Act when it disposed of coal ash into unlined ponds, which leaked contaminants via groundwater to an adjacent river. The court directed the utility company to excavate the coal ash and move it to a dry lined disposal location.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside an order directing Ecuadorian plaintiffs to provide substantial security for costs on appeal, recognizing “the unique factual circumstances of this case compel the conclusion that the interests of justice require that no order for security for costs be made.”