Hume Coal Pty Ltd v Alexander (No 2)

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Hume Coal Pty Ltd v Alexander (No 2) [2012] NSWLEC 278

Hearing dates:

14 December 2012

Decision date:

14 December 2012

Jurisdiction:

Class 8

Before:

Craig J

Decision:

1.  The hearing of the proceedings is expedited.

2.  The Plaintiff and First and Second Defendants are to serve any further evidence upon which they propose to rely by 28 January 2013.

3.  The Plaintiff and First and Second Defendants are to serve evidence in reply by 11 February 2013.

4.  The matter is listed for hearing for two days commencing on Monday 18 February 2013.

5.  Direct that the Plaintiff file and serve an outline of its submissions by 4pm on Wednesday 13 February 2013.

6.  Direct that the Defendants file and serve an outline of their submissions by 4.00pm on Friday 15 February 2013.

7.  Costs reserved.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE - expedition - proceedings under s 295 of the Mining Act 1992 - blockade to prevent implementation of exploration license - apparent interference with statutory entitlements - additional costs to miner occasioned by blockade - freedom of movement by landowners agreeing to exploration impaired by blockade - expedition granted

Legislation Cited:

Mining Act 1992

Cases Cited:

Hume Coal Pty Limited v Alexander [2012] NSWLEC 267

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

Hume Coal Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Ross Alexander (First Defendant)
Margaret Anne Alexander (Second Defendant)

Representation:

C R Ireland (Plaintiff)
S J Chapple (Defendants)
Minter Ellison (Plaintiff)
Environmental Defenders Office (Defendants)

File Number(s):

81128 of 2012

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. Hume Coal Pty Limited (Hume) has commenced proceedings in Class 8 of this Court's jurisdiction. The order that it seeks is an order pursuant to s 295 of the Mining Act 1992 to restrain what is said to be a blockade on a road or private access way which is preventing Hume from gaining access to an area over which it holds an exploration licence granted under the Mining Act. The land in question is located in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales.

1. An application for an interlocutory injunction was sought by Hume but that application was refused by Sheahan J on 7 December 2012 (Hume Coal Pty Limited v Alexander [2012] NSWLEC 267). Essentially it would appear that the application was refused on the basis that the relief sought on an interlocutory basis was in effect the final relief sought in the proceedings.

1. Hume now seeks an order that the hearing of the proceedings be expedited. It identifies a program for preparation of the matter for hearing with a view to a hearing date being fixed for February 2013.

1. Hume submits that expedition should be granted for three reasons. First, that it has an entitlement pursuant to the licence granted to it under the Mining Act to gain access to the land which is presently blockaded. On the evidence placed before me there would appear to be no doubt that the right of access for which…