Federal court legal action has been lodged over the SA government's plans for a MotoGP circuit in Adelaide CBD.
Documents filed with the Federal Court on September 18 showed the case has been brought by Joshua Hogan against the state of South Australia.
In that case, applicants Edwin Kemp Attrill and Janette Milera have argued the state government should have referred the redevelopment to federal environment minister Murray Watt.
3 sentences from our version of the report,
chosen to cover it. Nothing here is written; every line is in the article below.
How
Summarized version
Designs for the $96 million street circuit were released in August. Designs for the $96 million street circuit were released in August.
Headline check
The one thing this headline claims is in the report.
Figures, names and quoted words in the headline, looked for in the report itself — not in the summary above. One claim in this headline could be checked, so this is a narrow pass and not a thorough one. How this is checked
The article, shortened and in plain language
Federal court legal action has been lodged over the SA government's plans for a MotoGP circuit in Adelaide CBD.
Designs for the $96 million street circuit were released in August.
The state's attorney-general has acknowledged the application and said the government would defend its position.
Documents filed with the Federal Court on September 18 showed the case has been brought by Joshua Hogan against the state of South Australia.
"The Crown Solicitor's Office is now considering the application, including the orders sought and the grounds on which they are sought."
In that case, applicants Edwin Kemp Attrill and Janette Milera have argued the state government should have referred the redevelopment to federal environment minister Murray Watt.
Shortened to 1 minute
of reading, this version reads 3.9 on the Niral Score.
You are reading our version, not theirs.
This is ABC News's report shortened to its most important sentences, in plainer words, with
verdicts and loaded words taken out. Plain description stays, and so do adjectives
that carry a fact, such as "former" or "federal". The reporting, the facts and the quotations
are theirs — quotations are never edited — and the indicators beside it measure
this version. Hover or tap Adjectives to see every one left in the text.
How this outlet filed it, and how we rewrote it
No other newsroom we read has filed on this event, so there is nothing to compare it with yet.
This story is about a matter before the courts. Comments are closed on those, because what is written under them can prejudice a trial or damage somebody who has been charged with nothing.
If something here is wrong, tell us — that we do read.