The fourth defendant had been granted a licence to harvest sandalwood. The Claimant, Tropical Rainforest Aromatics Ltd., filed a claim for judicial review of the decision of the director of forests and demanded an injunction to stop the fourth defendant from harvesting sandalwood.

The first argument was that the second defendant, the Acting Director of Forests, had disregarded a guiding principle of the forest act, stating that the forests of Vanuatu must be sustainably managed, developed and protected so as to achieve greater social, environmental and economic benefits for the current and future generation. An important complementing principle is that establishing that the timber harvested should never exceed that annual sustainable yield which is to be set out in the Forestry Sector Plan.

The second ground was that the second defendant had exceeded its powers in granting the licences without a proper delegation from the Director of Forestry.

The Defendants meant that they had taken the provisions regarding sustainable management into account, but the Court found that there was reason to argue that the principles had not been sufficiently taken into account. The Court also discussed if a delegation had in fact been made to the second defendant, but did not come to a final conclusion.

The Court did not find that damages would be an adequate remedy, as the damage is ecological and cannot be adequately repaired. However, an order was given, restraining the fourth defendant from conducting sandalwood operations under its licence until further order of the Court. A new trial date was set.