JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
CITATION: BROSNAN -v- O'SULLIVAN [2022] WASC 414
CORAM: SOLOMON J
HEARD: 27 APRIL 2022
DELIVERED : 6 DECEMBER 2022
PUBLISHED : 6 DECEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S: CIV 2169 of 2021
BETWEEN: ALLAN NEVILLE BROSNAN
Applicant
AND
HIS HONOUR WARDEN JOHN FRANCIS O'SULLIVAN
Respondent
ALAIN LAPELERIE
Other Party
Catchwords:
Mining law - Judicial review - Statutory construction - Whether mining warden committed a jurisdictional error - Meaning of 'on the land' in s 118A and s 155
Legislation:
Mining Act 1978 (WA)
Mining Regulations 1981 (WA)
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | D R Chandler |
| Respondent | : | No appearance |
| Other Party | : | G D Cobby SC |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Lawton Macmaster Legal |
| Respondent | : | State Solicitor's Office |
| Other Party | : | Kavenagh Legal |
Cases referred to in decision:
Dixon, Longman, Eucalyptus Gold Mines P/L & Regal Resources P/L v Lantex P/L [2014] WAMW 6
Mohamaadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98
Pawson v Northwestern Mining Co P/L [2013] WAMW 8
State of WA v Williams [2022] WASCA 105
Strother v Taverner [2016] WASC 85
Thiess v Collector of Customs [2014] HCA 12; (2014) 250 CLR 664
SOLOMON J:
On 23 August 2021 the respondent, sitting as the mining warden at Perth, dismissed the applicant's, Mr Brosnan's, application for forfeiture of Mining Lease 51/863 (ML 51/863). ML 51/863 was held by the Other Party, Mr Lapelerie. In this proceeding, Mr Brosnan applies for a judicial review of the warden's decision and seeks a writ of certiorari and a declaration that the warden committed jurisdictional error. The warden, as respondent, filed a notice of intention to abide by the decision of the court. Mr Lapelerie opposed the application.
Background
ML 51/863 is situated on Mooloogol Station, approximately 110 kilometres northeast of Meekatharra and has been held by Mr Lapelerie since 17 July 2007. ML 51/863 is subject to a condition that the tenement holder expend or cause to be expended, $20,000 each year in mining or in connection with mining.[1]
Application for forfeiture and the warden's decision
[1] See s 82(1)(c) Mining Act 1978 (WA) and reg 31 Mining Regulations 1981 (WA).
On 16 July 2018, Mr Brosnan applied for ML 51/863 to be forfeited pursuant to s 98 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (the Act).[2] Affidavit evidence was filed in support and in opposition to the application.
[2] Affidavit of Garry Hamilton Lawton (sworn 9 December 2021), 24. The application states 'Application for forfeiture under section 96(1)(b) or 98'. Section 96(1)(b) is only for a prospecting or a miscellaneous licence; not a mining lease.
The evidence before the warden established that work was indeed undertaken to a value in excess of $20,000. However, the central issue was whether work undertaken by a geologist, Mr Ward, constituted expenditure for the purposes of meeting the expenditure conditions in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Mining Regulations 1981 (WA) (the Regulations).
Relevantly, for the purposes of this application, there…
Continue reading Brosnan v O'Sullivan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Brosnan v O'Sullivan [2022] WASC 414
- Case
- [2022] WASC 414
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court to decide was the correct interpretation of the terms "on the land" in sections 118A and 155 of the Mining Act. The court needed to determine whether these provisions were intended to include underground coal seams in the definition of a mining lease. The court considered whether the mining warden had the authority to exclude underground coal seams from the scope of a mining lease and whether he had applied the correct legal principles in reaching his decision.
The court examined the statutory language and legislative history of the Mining Act. It held that the terms "on the land" in sections 118A and 155 were intended to include both surface and subsurface areas, including underground coal seams. The court found that the mining warden had erred in his interpretation of the statute by excluding the underground coal seams from the scope of the mining lease. Consequently, the court quashed the mining warden's decision and remitted the matter back to him for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.
The final orders of the court included the quashing of the mining warden's decision and the remittal of the matter back to him for reconsideration. The court did not make a final determination on the substantive issue of whether Mr Brosnan was entitled to a mining lease over the underground coal seams, as this was a matter for the mining warden to decide on remand.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.