The application was for the continuation and/or enlargement of a previous interim order. Two logging licenses had been granted, though the land was disputed and there was no development consent from the Director of Environment.

The claimant meant that he represented the true owners in custom of various lands affected. He also stated that the licenses issued were defective. No hearing had been held in accordance with the Forest Act, and no development consent had been given in accordance with the Environment Act. Therefore the claimant sought to have the licenses be set aside.

The defendant disagreed with the above and claimed to have gone through all proper procedures required to obtain the licenses.  There was also evidence put forward about a hearing having been held and that it had been properly advertised. Though there was some more paperwork provided as evidence before the Court, it was unclear whether it was sufficient and covered both licenses. The Court determined that the claimant had, just barely, established that there were serious issues to be tried with regards to one of the licenses.

The Court then considered possible damages for the environmental harm caused. It stated that they are not always relevant when there has been damage to the forest and the land. The Court then considered the balance of convenience. It was found to be in favour of the claimant and he was entitled to an interim order preventing the First Defendant, or anyone acting on its behalf or with its authority, from entering Ghorotina and/or Kologhai land and carrying out any work or activity connected with logging.