The applicants were four fishermen, whose previous application had been granted an interim injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondent from proceeding with any beach or lagoonal works pending an appeal before the Environment Appeal Tribunal. The respondent contended that the interim injunction should be discharged and presented several grounds supporting this.
The Court stated that the applicants did have a right to fish in the area in question to earn their livelihood and the previous cases proved that injunction granted in pollution cases to preserve water rights had been given. The same principle used in pollution cases can also be used in relation to other damage to the environment.
The respondent meant that the applicants had failed to submit comments when given the opportunity in connection with the Environmental Impact Assessment. However, there is no duty to do this or a prerequisite to comment before lodging an appeal. The applicants also stated that they were unaware of the notices inviting the public to comment and that the authorities were in any case aware of their objections.
Lastly the Court discussed whether the applicant had raised a serious question to be tried. The applicants had filed affidavits supporting that the works by the respondent were detrimental to the environment. The Court agreed to this and asserted that it was just and convenient to grant the interlocutory injunction prayed for.