Legal Research
Cases
Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd v Michael

Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd v Michael

Link copied

Case Copied 15 August 2003 29 min read

Contents

On this page

EPIC ENERGY (WA) NOMINEES PTY LTD & ANOR -v- DR KENNETH COMNINOS MICHAEL WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENT GAS PIPELINE ACCESS REGULATOR [2003] WASC 156

Reported Decision:	(2003) 27 WAR 515
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 156
Case No:	CIV:2597/2002	Heard:	17 JULY 2003
Coram:	MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	15/08/03
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Some declarations made
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	EPIC ENERGY (WA) NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 081 609 289) EPIC ENERGY (WA) TRANSMISSION PTY LTD (ACN 081 609 190) DR KENNETH COMNINOS MICHAEL WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENT GAS PIPELINE ACCESS REGULATOR ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Delegated legislation Statutory construction power to make regulations necessary or convenient to give effect to act Whether reasonableness is part of such power Extent of power Costs Regulations allowing recovery of charges Whether regulation permits recovery of legal costs incurred in judicial proceedings Inconsistency Whether regulations inconsistent with Court's power to award costs
Legislation:	Gas Pipelines Access (Western Australia) Act 1996 Gas Pipelines Access (Western Australia) (Funding) Regulations 1999 Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 37
Case References:	Abson v Fenton (1822-23) 1 Barne & Cress 195 Commonwealth & The Central Wool Committee v Colonial Combing, Spinning & Weaving Co Ltd (1921-22) 31 CLR 421 De L v The Director General New South Wales Department of Community Services (1997) 190 CLR 207 Dowling v Commissioner of Water Resources [1993] 1 Qd R 70 Esmonds Motors Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1970) 120 CLR 463 Jackson v Hall [1980] AC 845 Marsh v Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale (1966) 120 CLR 572 Re Dr Ken Michael AM; Ex parte Epic Energy WA Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] WASCA 231(S) Re Dr Ken Michael AM; Ex parte Epic Energy WA Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2002] WASCA 231; (2002) 25 WAR 511 Shanahan v Scott (1956) 96 CLR 245 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 Air Caledonie International v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 462 Airservices Australia v Canadian Airlines International Ltd (1999) 202 CLR 133 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 AttorneyGeneral v Wilts United Dairies Ltd (1921) 37 TLR 884 Bond v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 213 City of Belmont v Link Interiors Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 64 Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 Commonwealth of Australia v State of Western Australia (1999) 196 CLR 392 Costa v Shire of Swan [1983] WAR 22 Director of Public Prosecutions South Australia v B (1998) 194 CLR 566 Director of Public Prosecutions v Brown (1998) 100 LGERA 181 Gomba (UK) Holdings Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2) [1992] 4 All ER 588 Gosling v Veley [1847] 7 QB 406 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Hancock, unreported; SCt of WA (Olney J); Library No 5195; 23 December 1983 Hepples v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (No 2) (1992) 173 CLR 492 Liverpool Corporation v Arthur Maiden Ltd…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd v Michael and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] WASC 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd and Epic Energy (WA) Transmission Pty Ltd, are the owner and operator of the Dampier to Bunbury natural gas pipeline. They brought proceedings against the defendant, Dr Kenneth Comninos Michael, the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator, challenging the validity of certain regulations made under the Gas Pipelines Access (Western Australia) Act 1996 ("the Act"). The plaintiffs sought declarations of invalidity or proper construction of the Gas Pipelines Access (Western Australia) (Funding) Regulations 1999 ("the funding regulations"). The Attorney General for Western Australia intervened in support of the validity of the regulations. The main legal issues were whether the regulations permitted full cost recovery and whether they allowed for the recovery of legal costs incurred in judicial proceedings. The court held that the funding regulations were within power and valid, but that the regulations should be construed to import a requirement of reasonableness into the service charges. Additionally, the regulations should not be construed as permitting the Regulator to recover costs incurred in judicial review proceedings. The court made declarations to that effect.

Orders