OGC could run to $9 if Gold $2000+ and Didipio Mine approved?, page-185

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...ter-high-court-dismiss-case-against-oceangold

Coromandel anti-mining group to pay $79,000 after High Court dismiss case against OceanGold
Sharnae Hope12:46, Dec 22 2020

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Reddit
• Email

OceanaGold/Supplied
OceanaGold's tailings reservoir used to store the tailings from its mining operations in Coromandel (File Photo).
A Coromandel anti-mining group has been ordered to pay $79,000 after the High Court dismissed the group’s claims against the Government’s decision to grant land to a gold mining company.
In June, Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki headed to the High Court in Wellington to challenge the Government over their decision to allow OceanaGold to acquire three parcels of rural land totalling 178 hectares near Waihī.
However, the judicial review was dismissed in September. On Friday the High Court issued an order for $79,000 worth of costs to be paid to the Crown Law and OceanaGold.

Watchdog chairperson Catherine Delahunty accepts defeat, but argues penalising a community group “with no money” is wrong.

READ MORE:
* High Court rules against attempt to overturn OceanaGold mining investment
* Conservation Minister advised to give up some mining decisions to avoid conflict calls
* OceanaGold gets approval to buy land for tailings ponds near Waihi gold mine

David Unwin/Stuff
Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki chairperson Catherine Delahunty said volunteers acting in the public interest shouldn’t have to pay.
In October 2019, the Minister of Finance Grant Robertson and Associate Minister of Finance David Parker each approved OceanaGold’s application.
Advertisement
Advertise with Stuff
The land near the mining company's Waihī operation will be used to create ponds for its gold mine tailings, which are the watery rock sludge left over from the extraction process.
Coromandel Watchdog challenged the decision on the ground that the ministers assessed the “benefit to NZ” without having regard to the detrimental effects associated with OceanaGold’s acquisition of rural land for a tailings dam.
The judicial review was dismissed, with Coromandel Watchdog liable to pay the respondents’ costs of $79,000.
“We accept that we lost the case, but we now feel like we are being penalised for standing up for the public and environment,” Delahunty told Stuff.

OCEANAGOLD/Waikato Times
In court, OceanaGold submitted that Coromandel Watchdog’s case was “profoundly flawed” (file photo).
From the countless court cases the 40-year-old group has taken against mining companies, Delahunty believes this is the first time the group has had to pay.
She said in the past if their cases were dismissed the costs were wavered by the Judge, “understanding the importance of voluntary groups acting in the public interest”.
She said they took the case to the High Court because they believed the Overseas Investment Act needed “clarifying” and the last Government was “divided over whether this land should be sold to OceanaGold”.

More from
Sharnae Hope • Waikato reporter
[email protected]
Now the court’s decision might deter other community organisations from asking for clarification, she said.
“It’s really wrong that we should have to pay, because it’s in the public’s interest to understand what the law says about detrimental affects on land and whether the judgement that ministers make is fair.
“It’s hardly something we have done lightly or without consideration. So really neither the court, nor the company and crown law should be asking for money in our view. It’s really unfair.

george heard/Stuff
OceanaGold told Stuff earlier that the High Court decision would allow the company to advance with planning for additional tailings storage for its future growth (file photo).
She said the organisation will be having a meeting in the coming days to figure out what they will do next.
“That money is peanuts to mining companies and the Crown law, but it’s absolutely enormous to us.
“We don’t know how we are going to pay the money. We managed to fundraise during Covid-19 to pay off our lawyers, but we don’t have the money to pay the $79,000.
“It’s put us in a terrible position and it’s a kick in the face a week before Christmas.”
Stuff approached OceanaGold for comment on how it felt about the court decision and whether it thought the $79,000 pay order was justified.
The company didn’t respond to these queries, but said the court’s decision had not yet been publicly released.
“We would expect the decision to be publicly available through the court service and it will cover the issues in this case,” the statement said.

Supplied
According to the decision, one of the criteria to be met before consent for an overseas investment on sensitive land, is that the overseas investment will, or is likely to, benefit NZ.