Helen Kaye Senderovic & Joso Jelic v The Department for Primary Industries & Resources

[2010] SAWC 3

Wardens Court of South Australia

(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)

HELEN KAYE SENDEROVIC & JOSO JELIC v THE DEPARTMENT FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES & RESOURCES

[2010] SAWC 3

Judgment of Senior Warden Dr Cannon

20 April 2010

ENERGY AND RESOURCES - MINERALS - MINING FOR MINERALS

Amalgamation. Meaning of 'contiguous'.

HELEN KAYE SENDEROVIC & JOSO JELIC v THE DEPARTMENT FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES & RESOURCES
[2010] SAWC 3

1. I note these claims are only joined at one corner.  Since the directions hearing I have researched the matter.  The claims must be ‘contiguous’, the word used in regulation 15 as a condition required before they can be amalgamated.

2. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary states that ‘contiguous’ means ‘touching, in contact, adjoining’ or ‘continuous’ or loosely ‘neighbouring’.  This implies some continuous contact rather than joining only at a single point, the corner of each.

3. This view is consistent with a policy that amalgamations are to facilitate the mining of a resource that extends to beyond one claim, for example, by a bulldozer cut or underground tunnelling across more than one claim.  Consistent with this approach, the Department is opposed to an amalgamation where the claims only join on a corner of each so that no working across the boundary is in practice possible.

4. I rule that ‘contiguous’ in this context means having a common boundary for a significant length.  If two claims are not so joined their labour conditions cannot be amalgamated.  This is consistent with earlier rulings of this court.  The application is refused.