FORREST & FORREST PTY LTD -v- WILSON [2015] WASC 181

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 181
Case No:	CIV:2054/2014	Heard:	11 NOVEMBER 2014
Coram:	ALLANSON J	Delivered:	28/05/15
No of pages:	38	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed on grounds 8 and 9 Error found on applications for M08/489 and G08/78
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	FORREST & FORREST PTY LTD STEPHEN McKENZIE WILSON YARRI MINING PTY LTD QUARRY PARK PTY LTD ONSLOW RESOURCES LTD
Catchwords:	Administrative Law Application for judicial review of recommendation of Warden Mining Act 1978 (WA) Jurisdictional error Error on face of record Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 25D Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s 13 Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA), s 38 Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 6, s 6(1a), s 6(1d), s 67, s 67(1), s 70O(1), s 73, s 74, s 74(1)(c)(ii), s 74(1)(ca), s 74(1)(ca)ii, s 74(1a), s 74(1AA), s 74(3), s 74(4), s 74(7), s 74A, s 75, s 75(1a), s 75(4), s 75(5), s 75(6), s 75(7), s 75(7)(e), s 75(8), s 75(9), s 81(1), s 82A, s 84, s 86(3), s 86(5), s 87(1), s 87(2), s 90, s 90(2), s 90(3), s 91, s 91(6), s 105, s 111A, s 116(2), s 118, s 162, s 162(2)(rb) Mining Regulations 1981 (WA), reg 32A(1), reg 32A(2), reg 36(b), reg 36(f), reg 146
Case References:	A v Corruption and Crime Commissioner [2013] WASCA 288 Anderson v Director General of the Department of Environment and Climate Change [2008] NSWCA 337; (2008) 163 LGERA 400 Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149 Mentink v Minister for Home Affairs [2013] FCAFC 113 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 206 CLR 323 Neat Domestic Trading Pty Ltd v AWB Ltd [2003] HCA 35; (2003) 216 CLR 277 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 Re Calder; Ex parte Cable Sands (WA) Pty Ltd (1998) 20 WAR 343 Re Minister for Resources; Ex parte Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 175; (2007) 34 WAR 403 Re Shire of Carnarvon; Ex parte Humphrey [2005] WASCA 182 Re Warden Calder; Ex parte Lee [2007] WASCA 161; (2007) 34 WAR 289 Weal v Bathurst City Council [2000] NSWCA 88; (2000) 111 LGERA 181 Yarri v Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd [2014] WAMW 6

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : FORREST & FORREST PTY LTD -v- WILSON [2015] WASC 181 CORAM : ALLANSON J HEARD : 11 NOVEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 28 MAY 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 2054 of 2014 BETWEEN : FORREST & FORREST PTY LTD

Applicant

AND

STEPHEN McKENZIE WILSON

First Respondent

YARRI…

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 Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson 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: [2015] WASC 181
Decision Date: 28 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the decision of the Warden, pursuant to the Mining Act 1978 (WA), contained any jurisdictional errors or errors on the face of the record. Specifically, the applicant sought judicial review of the Warden's recommendations on applications for M08/489 and G08/78, which were related to mining leases. The applicant argued that the Warden had made errors in the assessment of certain conditions attached to the mining leases, and that these errors were apparent from the record.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Warden's decisions contained any jurisdictional errors or errors on the face of the record. In considering this issue, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) and the applicable administrative law principles. The court found that the Warden had indeed made errors in the assessment of certain conditions, and that these errors were apparent from the record. The court held that the Warden had failed to properly consider certain relevant factors, and had instead relied on irrelevant or outdated information. The court also found that the Warden had not properly exercised his discretion in making the recommendations.

As a result of the court's findings, the application for judicial review was allowed on grounds 8 and 9. The court quashed the Warden's recommendations on applications for M08/489 and G08/78, and remitted the matter back to the Warden for reconsideration. The court emphasised that its decision was based on the specific facts of the case, and that it did not constitute a general statement of the law. The final orders of the court were that the Warden's recommendations on applications for M08/489 and G08/78 be quashed, and that the matter be remitted back to the Warden for reconsideration in accordance with the court's reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed on grounds 8 and 9

Error found on applications for M08/489 and G08/78

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.