Jenkins v WMC Resources Ltd

Case [1999] WASCA 171


JENKINS -v- WMC RESOURCES LTD [1999] WASCA 171



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[1999] WASCA 171
THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:SJA:1088/199810 JUNE 1999
Coram:PIDGEON J
ANDERSON J
STEYTLER J
10/09/99
13Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
PDF Version
Parties:BRYAN ROBERT JENKINS
WMC RESOURCES LTD

Catchwords:

Evidence
Mechanical records
National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth), s 10 and s 3
Meaning of "Australian legal unit of measurement"
Where physical quantity measured by combination of units
Combination of units only "Australian legal unit of measurement" if particular combination prescribed in relation to particular physical quantity measured
Micrograms per cubic metre of dry air at zero degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure not an "Australian legal unit of measurement" of concentration of sulphur dioxide

Legislation:

Environmental Protection Act 1986, s 6
National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth), s 3, s 7A, s 7B and s 10

Case References:

Breedon v Kongras (1996) 16 WAR 66
Mitchell v W S Kimpton & Sons Pty Ltd [1971] VR 583
Porter v Kolodzeij [1962] VR 75
Re Appeal of White (1987) 9 NSWLR 427
Willing v Ewens (1973) 7 SASR 231

Dempster v National Companies and Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215
Radalj v Taylor (1997) 98 A Crim R 170
Rumsley v Taylor (1997) 142 FLR 312

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : JENKINS -v- WMC RESOURCES LTD [1999] WASCA 171 CORAM : PIDGEON J
    ANDERSON J
    STEYTLER J
HEARD : 10 JUNE 1999 DELIVERED : 10 SEPTEMBER 1999 FILE NO/S : SJA 1088 of 1998 BETWEEN : BRYAN ROBERT JENKINS
    Appellant (Complainant)

    AND

    WMC RESOURCES LTD
    Respondent (Defendant)



Catchwords:

Evidence - Mechanical records - National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth), s 10 and s 3 - Meaning of "Australian legal unit of measurement" - Where physical quantity measured by combination of units - Combination of units only "Australian legal unit of measurement" if particular combination prescribed in relation to particular physical quantity measured - Micrograms per cubic metre of dry air at zero degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure not an "Australian legal unit of measurement" of concentration of sulphur dioxide




Legislation:

Environmental Protection Act 1986, s 6


National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth), s 3, s 7A, s 7B and s 10

(Page 2)

Result:

    Appeal allowed

Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant (Complainant) : Mr R M Mitchell
    Respondent (Defendant) : Mr M J McCusker QC & Mr A J Power


Solicitors:

    Appellant (Complainant) : State Crown Solicitor
    Respondent (Defendant) : Jackson McDonald


Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Breedon v Kongras (1996) 16 WAR 66
Mitchell v W S Kimpton & Sons Pty Ltd [1971] VR 583
Porter v Kolodzeij [1962] VR 75
Re Appeal of White (1987) 9 NSWLR 427
Willing v Ewens (1973) 7 SASR 231

Case(s) also cited:



Dempster v National Companies and Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 215
Radalj v Taylor (1997) 98 A…

Continue reading Jenkins v WMC Resources Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jenkins v WMC Resources Ltd [1999] WASCA 171
Case
[1999] WASCA 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jenkins v WMC Resources Ltd was heard by the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth), specifically the definitions of "Australian legal unit of measurement" in sections 10 and 3. The plaintiff, Jenkins, brought the case against WMC Resources Ltd, arguing that the company's measurement of sulphur dioxide concentration was not in compliance with the Act. The central issue was whether the measurement unit used by the defendant, micrograms per cubic metre of dry air at zero degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure, constituted an "Australian legal unit of measurement" for the concentration of sulphur dioxide.

The court was tasked with determining the precise meaning of the term "Australian legal unit of measurement" as it applied to the measurement of physical quantities. The High Court held that a combination of units could only be deemed an "Australian legal unit of measurement" if that particular combination was prescribed in relation to the specific physical quantity being measured. In this instance, the court concluded that the measurement unit used by WMC Resources Ltd did not meet the criteria set out in the Act. The combination of units used did not correspond to a prescribed "Australian legal unit of measurement" for the concentration of sulphur dioxide.

As a result of the court's reasoning, the appeal was allowed. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to prescribed units of measurement as outlined in the National Measurement Act 1960 (Cth). This ruling serves as a reminder for companies to ensure their measurement practices comply with legislative requirements to avoid similar legal challenges in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.