FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Minister for the Environment & Heritage v Greentree (No 2) [2004] FCA 741

CORRIGENDUM

MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE v GREENTREE & ORS

N 914 of 2003

SACKVILLE J

SYDNEY

11 JUNE 2004 (CORRIGENDUM DATED 8 SEPTEMBER 2004)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY	N 914 of 2003

BETWEEN:	MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE APPLICANT
AND:	RONALD GREENTREE FIRST RESPONDENT MERRYWINEBONE PTY LTD THIRD RESPONDENT ADAM NORRIE FOURTH RESPONDENT AMY MAREE GREENTREE FIFTH RESPONDENT KENNETH BRUCE HARRIS SIXTH RESPONDENT ROBERT HAROLD HARRIS SEVENTH RESPONDENT AUEN GRAIN PTY LTD EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JUNE 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM

1 In par 38 of the Reasons for Judgment, the word ‘concluded’ in the third sentence is replaced with ‘included’.

2 In par 41 of the Reasons for Judgment, the words ‘concerning to’ in the second sentence should be replaced with ‘conforming with’.

3 In par 44 of the Reasons for Judgment, the last sentence should read:

‘In particular, the Principal Respondents disputed that any of their actions had or was likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of the Windella Ramsar site.’

4 In par 72 of the Reasons for Judgment, the word ‘informal’ in the second sentence is replaced with ‘information’.

5 In par 85 of the Reasons for Judgment, the fifth sentence should read:

‘Using the procedure, Ms McDonald was able to identify the co-ordinates for the four corners of the Windella Ramsar site as follows:’

6 In par 104 of the Reasons for Judgment, the first sentence should read:

‘In February 2003, Mr Greentree instructed Mr Jones to clear and plough an area of land on Windella in preparation for a seedbed.’

7 In par 104 of the Reasons for Judgment, the last sentence of the quote should read:

‘It’s OK to continue with the preparation of the seed-bed.’

8 In par 108 of the Reasons for Judgment, the word ‘meters’ in the first sentence is replaced with ‘metres’.

9 In par 113 of the Reasons for Judgment, the last sentence should read:

‘This could lead Australian courts to reach decisions at odds with the position of the Contracting Parties themselves.’

10 In par 116 of the Reasons for Judgment, the last sentence should read:

‘It was the Windella Ramsar site as recorded in the plans that was intended to be designated under Art 2 of the Ramsar Convention.’

11 In par 138 of the Reasons for Judgment, the last sentence should read:

‘It followed, so the respondents argued, that s 16(1) did not apply to their actions, even if they could be said to have or be likely to have ‘a significant impact on the ecological character of [the Windella Ramsar site]’.’

12 In par 191 of the Reasons for Judgment, the quote should read:

‘an impact that is important, notable or of consequence having regard to its context or intensity’.

13 In par 198 of the Reasons for Judgment, the first sentence should read:

Although the evidence in the present case was incomplete in some respects, it established that by October 2002 only approximately 20 percent of the Windella Ramsar site, on its eastern boundary, had been cleared.

14 In par 198 of the Reasons for Judgment, the word ‘division’ in the second sentence is replaced with ‘diversion’.

15 In par 204 of the Reasons for Judgment, the word ‘inunction’ in the second sentence is replaced with ‘injunction’.

16 In par 207 of the Reasons for Judgment, the second sentence should read:

‘It extends to a person who gives instructions from a position of authority to an employee requiring the employee to carry out the particular action.’

17 In pars 105, 129, 154, 155, 158, 166, 172, 173, 176 and 210 of the Reasons for Judgment, the words ‘Ramsar Windella site’ are replaced with ‘Windella Ramsar site’.

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.

Associate:

Dated: 8 September 2004

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Minister for the Environment & Heritage v Greentree (No 2) [2004] FCA 741

CORRIGENDUM

MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE v GREENTREE & ORS

N 914 of 2003

SACKVILLE J

SYDNEY

11 JUNE 2004

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 914 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE APPLICANT
AND:	RONALD GREENTREE FIRST RESPONDENT MERRYWINEBONE PTY LTD THIRD RESPONDENT ADAM NORRIE FOURTH RESPONDENT AMY MAREE GREENTREE FIFTH RESPONDENT KENNETH BRUCE HARRIS SIXTH RESPONDENT ROBERT HAROLD HARRIS SEVENTH RESPONDENT AUEN GRAIN PTY LTD EIGHTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SACKVILLE J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 JUNE 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

CORRIGENDUM

1. In par 16 of the Reasons for Judgment, the amount ‘$5,590,000’ is replaced with ‘$5,500,000’.

I certify that the preceding one (1) numbered paragraph is a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sackville.

Associate:

Dated: 22 June 2004

Top