Vanda Radzik and Elizabeth Deane Hughes v The Environmental Protection Agency and others 2023-HC-DEM-CIV-FDA-456

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is notable for a number of reasons, not least the reinforcement of the well-established separation between the role of the Executive and the role of the Judiciary in government. It concerned the Environmental Permit issued to ExxonMobil Guyana Limited by the Environmental Protection Agency for the conduct of the Gas to Energy Project. Principally, the Applicants sought to have the Permit quashed and the project halted. However, none of the requested Orders were granted, and as such the development is permitted to continue.

This case is certainly a noteworthy one because, in addition to clarifying the environmental authorization process, it exemplified the delicacy of the exercise undertaken by the Courts when considering whether to disturb decisions made by statutorily appointed bodies. This is precisely what I explored and discussed in my piece, “International Investment Law Implications of Cancelling Environmental Permits for Petroleum Development: Why Guyanese Stakeholders Should have Cancellation Reservations”.