Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board

Last updated
Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board
Court Durban and Coast Local Division
Full case nameVerstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others
Decided24 November 1993 (1993-11-24)
Citation(s)1994 (3) SA 569 (D); 4645/93
Court membership
Judge sittingMagid J
Case opinions
Decision byMagid J
Keywords
Environmental law, Waste disposal, Permit, Regulations, Locus standi, Public interest, Local authority, Interdict, Interim interdict, Balance of convenience

Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others [1] [2] is an important case in South African environmental law, heard on September 29, 1993.

Contents

It was an application for an interim interdict in which certain questions were argued in limine . RJ Salmon, instructed by Garlicke & Bousfield Inc., appeared for the applicant. GD Harpur, instructed by Barry Botha & Breytenbach, appeared for the first respondent. There was no appearance for the second, third and fourth respondents, who had the State Attorney.

Finding of the court

The court found that the requirement, enacted in section 20(1) of the Environment Conservation Act, [3] of a permit issued by the Minister of Water Affairs to "establish, provide or operate" a waste-disposal site is plainly couched in the most peremptory language. [4] The clear intention of the legislature, as expressed in section 20(1) of the Act, cannot be overridden by the Minister's failure, whether inadvertent or intentional, to make the appropriate regulations, as intended in section 20(2), providing for a form of application for such permit and the prescribed information required. [5]

The court accordingly held that the Minister's failure to promulgate the regulations foreshadowed in section 20(2) of the Act did not render lawful the conduct of the first respondent, a local authority, in operating the waste disposal site (which the applicant sought to interdict) without a permit in terms of s 20(1) of the Act. [6]

It was clear to the court, from the language of the Environment Conservation Act, that the legislature intended the provisions of the Act to operate in the interests of the public at large. That being the case, an applicant seeking an interdict against the unlawful operation of a waste disposal site without a permit is required to show that the contravention of the Act by the respondent has caused or was likely to cause him some special damage. [7] The court held on the facts that the applicant had not shown that she had suffered any special damage at all. [8]

The applicant also sought to establish her locus standi in judicio to apply for an interdict restraining the first respondent local authority from committing the illegality of operating the waste disposal site without the aforementioned permit on the basis that she was a ratepayer of the first respondent, and that in several reported cases the courts had afforded ratepayers the right to interdict local authorities from dealing with their funds or property contrary to law. [9] The court held that it did not consider that the mere fact that some municipal funds were obviously spent in managing and operating the waste disposal site in question could conceivably afford the applicant locus standi to interdict what she regarded as an illegality. The court held that it had not been established on the papers that the first respondent's manner of operation of the waste disposal site was more expensive than any of the various methods suggested by the applicant. [10]

The manner in which the grant or refusal of an interim interdict would affect the immediate parties to the litigation, the court found, is not the only matter relevant to a determination of the balance of convenience, which is relevant to the exercise by the court of its discretion to grant or refuse an interdict. Where, as in the present case, the wider general public is affected, the convenience of the public must be taken into account in any assessment of the balance of convenience. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

Industrial waste Waste produced by industrial activity or manufacturing processes

Industrial waste is the waste produced by industrial activity which includes any material that is rendered useless during a manufacturing process such as that of factories, mills, and mining operations. Types of industrial waste include dirt and gravel, masonry and concrete, scrap metal, oil, solvents, chemicals, scrap lumber, even vegetable matter from restaurants. Industrial waste may be solid, semi-solid or liquid in form. It may be hazardous waste or non-hazardous waste. Industrial waste may pollute the nearby soil or adjacent water bodies, and can contaminate groundwater, lakes, streams, rivers or coastal waters. Industrial waste is often mixed into municipal waste, making accurate assessments difficult. An estimate for the US goes as high as 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste produced annually, as of 2017. Most countries have enacted legislation to deal with the problem of industrial waste, but strictness and compliance regimes vary. Enforcement is always an issue.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste.

Environmental Protection Act 1990 United Kingdom legislation

The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that as of 2008 defines, within England and Wales and Scotland, the fundamental structure and authority for waste management and control of emissions into the environment.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control is an agency of the government of the state of California. The mission of the DTSC is to protect public health and the environment from toxic harm. DTSC is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), has more than one thousand employees, and is headquartered in Sacramento. DTSC also has a number of regional offices across the state including two environmental chemistry laboratories, and field offices in Sacramento, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Chatsworth, Commerce, Cypress, Clovis (Fresno), San Diego and Calexico.

In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute regulating economic aspects of nuclear generating plants was not preempted by the federal Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The case provides a framework that has guided other cases involving preemption of federal authority.

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake. The case addressed tailings from the Kensington mine, an underground mine located in Alaska. The gold mine had not operated since 1928, and Coeur Alaska obtained a permit in 2005 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to dispose of up to 4.5 million tons of tailings in Lower Slate Lake, which is located in a National Forest.

Waste management law

Waste management laws govern the transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of all manner of waste, including municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, and nuclear waste, among many other types. Waste laws are generally designed to minimize or eliminate the uncontrolled dispersal of waste materials into the environment in a manner that may cause ecological or biological harm, and include laws designed to reduce the generation of waste and promote or mandate waste recycling. Regulatory efforts include identifying and categorizing waste types and mandating transport, treatment, storage, and disposal practices.

<i>Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General</i> Singapore legal judgement

Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 2008 and the 2009 judgment by the Court of Appeal. The main issue raised by the case was whether the Collector of Land Revenue had treated the plaintiffs, who were devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple, unequally by compulsorily acquiring for public purposes the land on which the temple stood but not the lands of a Hindu mission and a Christian church nearby. It was alleged that the authorities had acted in violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which guarantees the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Illegality in Singapore administrative law Singaporean judicial review doctrine

Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.

Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

<i>Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa</i> South African legal case

Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court (CC) on 19 February 2008, with judgment handed down on 2 October. The judges were Langa CJ, O'Regan ADCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J, Jafta AJ and Kroon AJ. Counsel for the applicant was G. Budlender. There was no appearance for the first respondent, but Wim Trengrove SC appeared for the second and for the third respondent. The applicant's attorneys were Kruger & Co.; the State Attorney represented the second respondent, while the third respondent's attorneys were Brugmans Inc.

South African environmental law The legal rules in South Africa relating to management of the environment

South African environmental law describes the legal rules in South Africa relating to the social, economic, philosophical and jurisprudential issues raised by attempts to protect and conserve the environment in South Africa. South African environmental law encompasses natural resource conservation and utilization, as well as land-use planning and development. Issues of enforcement are also considered, together with the international dimension, which has shaped much of the direction of environmental law in South Africa. The role of the country's Constitution, crucial to any understanding of the application of environmental law, also is examined. The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) provides the underlying framework for environmental law.

In Johannesburg City Council v Knoetze and Sons, an important case in South African law, Trollip J dealt

  1. with the question of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interdict to restrain the performance of conduct which, of itself, constitutes a statutory offence, and
  2. with the question of who has locus standi to move the court for an interdict where the court has jurisdiction to grant one.

Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African environmental law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division by Hurt J on March 29, 1995, with judgment handed down on December 15, 1995. Counsel for the applicant was CJ Hartzenberg SC ; DA Gordon SC appeared for the respondents. The applicant's attorney was the State Attorney; the respondents' attorneys were Venn, Nemeth & Hart.

Pressma Services (Pty) Ltd v Schuttler and Another is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Cape Provincial Division on 19 April 1989 by Van Schalkwyk AJ, who delivered judgment on 12 September. The applicant's attorneys were Ince, Wood & Raubenheimer; the respondents' attorneys were Lindsay, Schneider & Kawalsky. The case concerned an application in terms of section 424(1) of the Companies Act and argument on a point in limine. RR Horn appeared for the applicant; KAB Engers appeared for the respondent.

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others is an important case in South African law, in particular in the area of civil procedure, with its determination that the execution of immovable property is subject to judicial oversight.

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

Uthingo Management (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Trade and Industry is an important case in South African administrative law, in which the applicant sought an order interdicting the second and third respondents from operating a national lottery in South Africa, pending the final determination of the applicant's review application.

<i>DB v The Minister for Health</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DB v The Minister for Health[2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity.

References

Case law

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 1994 (3) SA 569 (D).
  2. ↑ Case No. 4645/93.
  3. ↑ Act 73 of 1989.
  4. ↑ 573A.
  5. ↑ 573D/E-E.
  6. ↑ 573G/H-H.
  7. ↑ 574C/D-E.
  8. ↑ 574I.
  9. ↑ 575B.
  10. ↑ 575E/F-F/G.
  11. ↑ 576G/H-H/I.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.