Donnelly and Anor. v Ross Mining

[2000] NSWLEC 189

Land and Environment Court

of New South Wales

CITATION:	Donnelly and Anor. v Ross Mining and Ors. [2000] NSWLEC 189
PARTIES:	APPLICANTS: Donnelly and Anor. RESPONDENTS: Ross Mining and Ors.
FILE NUMBER(S):	40164 of 1998
CORAM:	Bignold J
KEY ISSUES:	Practice & Procedure :- discharge of interim injunction pending final judgment in expedited proceedings.
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
DATES OF HEARING:	23/08/00
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE :	08/23/2000
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:	APPLICANTS: Mr A Oshlack, Agent SOLICITORS N/A RESPONDENTS: Ms J Hughes, Solicitor SOLICITORS Phillips Fox

JUDGMENT:

IN THE LAND AND Matter No . 40164 of 1998

ENVIRONMENT COURT OF Coram : Bignold J.

NEW SOUTH WALES 23 August 2000

ANDREW DONNELLY AND DAVID MUNDINE

Applicants

v

ROSS MINING NL

First Respondents

CAPRICORNIA PROSPECTING PTY LTD

Second Respondents

TENTERFIELD SHIRE COUNCIL

Third Respondent

DIRECTOR-GENERAL NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Fourth Respondent

TIMBARRA GOLD MINES PTY LTD

Fifth Respondent

JUDGMENT

Bignold J:

1. The reason why I propose to discharge the interim injunction is that a month will have elapsed since the final hearing was commenced on 24 July 2000. The hearing occupied some 11 hearing days (instead of the anticipated 5 days) and in the event, was not concluded until 10 August 2000, when judgment was reserved.

2. At the conclusion of the hearing, Senior Counsel for the first to fourth Respondents applied to have the interim injunction immediately discharged (on the basis that I had now heard the whole of the evidence in the case and was in a far better position to evaluate the competing cases than I was on the interlocutory stages). On that occasion, I declined to discharge the injunction but indicated that I would review the application on Friday the following week 18 August 2000, recognising the need for urgency in the finalisation of the case.

3. Unfortunately, my consideration of that matter and of the reserved judgment generally has been delayed because of my involvement in the hearing of a separate proceedings between the same parties which commenced on Monday of last week and which continued until it was adjourned on Monday of this week.

4. In the result, final judgment has been delayed beyond the expected date for delivery of judgment when on 7 July 2000, I continued the interim injunction that I had originally granted on 30 June 2000 when the proceedings were commenced in this Court.

5. Although I anticipate being in the position to deliver final judgment in the proceedings by the end of next week, I think it only fair on the balance of the competing interests that were discussed in my judgment of 7 July 2000 that the interim injunction be discharged at the end of this week and pending delivery of final judgment.

6. In the circumstances, pending delivery of final judgment in the proceedings I order that the interim injunction granted by the Court on 30 June 2000 and continued in the Court on 7 July 2000 be discharged on and from midnight Friday 25th August 2000.