Cases

Lungowe v. Vendanta Resources PLC

Lungowe v. Vendanta Resources PLC [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC) (May 7, 2016)
England and Wales High Court (Technology and Construction Court)

More than 1,800 residents of four Zambian communities near the Nchanga copper mine brought an action in the UK against Vendanta Resources (Vendanta) and Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) for harm arising out of pollution and environmental damage caused by mining operations. 

Montana Environmental Information Center v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

In Montana Environmental, Bull Mountain Development Company proposed to build a coal-fired power plant near a Class I area, which included parks, wilderness areas, and an Indian reservation. Id. at 512. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the federal land manager (FLM), which is directly responsible for managing a Class I area, determined that the proposed coal-fired plant would adversely impact the visibility of a Class I area.

Australian Conservation Foundation v. Minister for Planning [2004] VCAT 2029

Environmental groups challenged an amendment to the provisions of a local planning scheme that was necessary for the expansion of the Hazelwood coal mine in southeastern Australia. The petitioners claimed that the environment effects statement (EES) should have included analysis of the impacts of carbon emissions when the coal is later burned.

Sindicato de Trabajadores Independientes Procesadoras de Productos del Mar del Borde Costero Caleta Lo Rojas y otros c/ Central Termoeléctrica Bocamina I y II de ENDESA Chile S.A

Sindicato de Trabajadores Independientes Procesadoras de Productos del Mar del Borde Costero Caleta Lo Rojas y otros c/ Central Termoeléctrica Bocamina I y II de ENDESA Chile S. A., Rol No. 9852-2013, Supreme Court of Chile (2014) (decided on 9 January 2014, revised 6 November 2014): 

https://microjuriscl.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/mjch_mjj36617.pdf

 

Karabiga Cenal Power Station

[ELAW seeks a copy of this court decision.]

News articles report a company proposing to construct a coal-fired power plant near Karabiga, Turkey, attempted to disguise the severe environmental and cumulative impacts of the proposed project by preparing four separate EIAs, rather than a single EIA.  Each of these EIAs was approved by environmental officials; however, a Turkish administrative court rejected this approach and declared that the project proponent must prepare one EIA disclosing all of the impacts of the coal-fired power plant in its entirety. 

Pages

Subscribe to Cases