2010 MarsdenLR 3775 ; 2010 MarsdenLR 1

LAU BEE LAN
WONG KIN HOONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN ALAM SEKITAR & ANOR – Respondent

Judicial review requires timely action; applicants with delayed applications cannot justify inordinate delays based on knowledge of decisions related to environmental assessments.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Quality Act 1974 - Section 34A - Judicial Review - Application for extension of time to review decisions regarding Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - Court found inordinate delay and lack of justifiable reasons for extension - The applicants' objections concerning the EIA Report lacked timely action, given their prolonged awareness of the 2nd respondent's activities. (Paras 1, 2, 34, 61)

(B) Judicial review - Standards for granting leave - Applicants must demonstrate good reason for delay; mere knowledge of decisions does not suffice unless acted upon promptly; extra-judicial activities do not excuse delays. (Paras 26, 49)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, residents of Kampung Bukit Koman, brought an application for judicial review against decisions of the Department of Environment regarding EIA approvals for a mining project using cyanide, arguing against the lack of new EIA requirements and procedural unfairness. Court found 11 years delay in seeking review of the initial EIA Report approval could not be justified.

Findings of Court:
There was only one reviewable decision made regarding the EIA Report approval, rendered 13 January 1997, and the subsequent communication on 21 February 2008 was merely informational, lacking another reviewable decision.

Issues: The court primarily addressed the nature of the delays in the applicants' application and whether an extension of time was warranted for judicial review in light of evident knowledge regarding the EIA decisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded there was inordinate delay by the applicants in applying for judicial review, which was neither justified by their conduct nor by the purported lack of knowledge; thus, the extension of time for the application was denied.

Result: Application for judicial review dismissed.