Coral Bay Recycling: Revocation Without Reasons and the Exhaustion Trap
The environmental agency of a coastal district granted Coral Bay Recycling a 10-year operating licence in 2022 for a plant processing 120 tonnes of plastic waste per day. In March a local television report showed leachate pooling near the site. Six days later the agency issued a one-paragraph letter revoking the licence 'in view of the loss of public trust and the need to protect the environment'. No inspection report was attached, and Coral Bay was never invited to respond. The agency's own published licensing guidelines provide that revocation requires two written warnings followed by a 30-day remediation period; Coral Bay received none. Coral Bay has invested 2.4 million in the plant, employs 80 staff, and holds a five-year supply contract with the municipality. An internal objection to the agency head must be filed within 30 days of notification. Coral Bay says it never received the letter and learned of the revocation from a news website on day 34. It seeks judicial review, asking the court to quash the decision and order the licence reinstated.
1. Identify the available grounds of review and assess the strength of each, addressing the agency's argument that the court should defer to its technical assessment.
Read the worked answer
Ground 1 - breach of natural justice. No hearing preceded a decision with drastic consequences for a 2.4 million investment and 80 jobs. This is the strongest ground: the right to be heard attaches to licences already granted, not only to applications.
Ground 2 - failure to give reasons. A one-paragraph letter reciting 'loss of public trust' supplies no findings, no evidence relied on, and no reasoning the court can scrutinise. Reasons are the precondition of effective review.
Ground 3 - departure from published policy. The guidelines prescribe two written warnings and a remediation window. An agency may depart from its own policy, but only with reasons and consistently; skipping the whole graduated scheme and jumping to revocation is arbitrary.
Ground 4 - proportionality. Revocation is the heaviest sanction available. Less restrictive measures (conditions, monitoring, a fine, suspension) were available and untried.
Deference. The agency wins deference on the science - whether leachate is harmful and at what concentration is a technical question for the regulator. It wins no deference on procedure, on the choice of sanction, or on the duty to give reasons, which are legal and proportionality questions. So the technical evidence (the television footage) should not be re-litigated, but the process by which the sanction was chosen should be.
Conclusion: natural justice and reasons are strong; legitimate expectation and proportionality support them; the factual merits are the agency's territory.
2. Does the missed 30-day internal objection bar judicial review? Assess the competing positions.
Read the worked answer
Starting point. Exhaustion of internal remedies is normally a precondition to review, and a four-day overrun looks fatal on its face. Three lines of argument reopen it.
1. Service. Time runs from notification. Coral Bay denies receiving the letter; the agency bears the burden of proving valid service (dispatch record, receipt, registered address). If service was defective, the clock never started and the application is in time.
2. Futility. The internal objection lies to the very official who signed the decision. Where the decision-maker is also the reviewer, and where the defect is procedural rather than a matter of disputed fact for the agency, an objection is arguably incapable of producing a different outcome.
3. Nullity. A decision made in breach of the right to be heard is often treated as void rather than voidable, and a void act can be challenged without exhausting remedies; courts also have a discretion to extend time for good cause, which non-receipt supplies.
Counterargument. If service was valid, the deadline is a genuine statutory bar and the court should not rewrite it; Coral Bay should have objected and then reviewed.
Conclusion. The court should decide service as a preliminary fact. If service is unproven, review proceeds; if it is proven, futility is still arguable as an exception, but the case becomes materially harder.
3. If the decision is found unlawful, should the court quash and remit, or substitute the licence?
Read the worked answer
Principle. A reviewing court supervises legality, not merits. The ordinary remedy is to quash the decision and remit it to the agency, because the statute confers the discretion and the agency holds the technical competence.
Why substitution is exceptional. Reinstating the licence would require the court to find, on the material before it, that no contamination exists and that no conditions are needed. That is exactly the technical judgment it lacks, and it would usurp the regulator's function.
When substitution is justified. Where remittal would be futile (the agency has already prejudged the matter), where only one outcome is legally open (the guidelines mandate warnings first and the facts are undisputed), or where the delay would cause disproportionate harm to an operating business.
Application and practical package. The court should quash and remit within a fixed period, with directions: a fresh inspection with Coral Bay present, disclosure of the report, an opportunity to respond, and a reasoned decision applying the graduated scheme. Pending reconsideration, the court should suspend the revocation so the plant can operate under conditions, with monitoring and a remediation plan, to protect the 80 employees and the municipal supply contract. Substitution becomes appropriate only if the agency fails to comply within the period set.
Conclusion: quash, remit with directions, interim suspension; substitution as a backstop for non-compliance.