Martin v Hume Coal Pty Ltd - [2015] NSWLEC 1461

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Martin & Ors v Hume Coal Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 1461
Hearing dates: 27 August ,14,15,16 17 September 2015
Decision date: 13 November 2015
Jurisdiction: Class 8
Before: Dixon C
Decision:
The Court orders:
(1) The summons dated 12 May 2015 is dismissed.
(2) Order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings unless within 14 days from the date of these orders the plaintiffs apply to the registrar to relist the matter for the hearing of argument as to costs.
(3) The exhibits are returned.

Catchwords: APPEAL – mining – exploration licence - meaning of the phrase ‘rights conferred by the licence’ in s31(1) of the Mining Act 1992 – whether the ‘rights conferred by the licence’ in s31 are extended by the terms of the conditions attached to the licence - including a right to access the surface of the land by vehicle to carry out prospecting and/or prospecting operations - whether identified improvements are ‘other valuable works’ and thereby are ‘significant improvements’ under s31(1)
Legislation Cited: Interpretation Act 1989 (NSW
Mining Act 1992 (NSW)
Mining Act (Improvement of Lands) Act 2008 (NSW)
State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (NSW)
Mining Act Regulations 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Project Blue Sky Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355
Minister for Urban Affairs v Rosemount Estate Pty Ltd (1996) 91 LGERA 31
Warkworth Mining Ltd v Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc [2014] NSWCA 105; (2014) 86 NSWLR 527
Kayuga Coal Pty Ltd v John Ducey [2000] NSWCA 54
CCM Holdings Trust Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWSC 1072
Newland Coal Mines Pty Ltd v Minister for Mineral Resources [2007] NSWSC 1299
Lightning Ridge Miners Association Ltd v Slack-Smith and Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1063
Trust Company of Australia Ltd v The Valuer General [2007] NSWCA 181
Goode v Valuer General [1979] 22 SASR 247
Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; 218 CLR 216
Ulan Coal Mines Ltd v Minister For Mineral Resources [2007]NSWSC 1299
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Martin (Applicant 1)
Phillip Pollicina (Applicant 2)
Fesen Pty Ltd (Applicant 3)
Ross Alexander (Applicant 4)
Kathleen Roche (Applicant 5)
Hume Coal Pty Limited (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Robert White (Applicants)
Richard Beasley SC with Amy Knox (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Marylou Potts Pty Ltd (Applicants)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers

File Number(s): 80405 of 2015

Introduction

Hume Coal Pty Ltd (Hume) holds an exploration licence authorisation number A349 (the licence) for the exploration of coal in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales.
The licence - granted in 1986 and last renewed on 12 March 2013 - permits Hume to conduct prospecting and prospecting operations on land within the exploration area subject to an access agreement.
Hume’s exploration programme is targeted to obtain as much geological information as possible about the coal resource within the area to which A349 relates. This is achieved through drilling,…

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 Martin v Hume Coal Pty Ltd 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] NSWLEC 1461
Decision Date: 13 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Martin v Hume Coal Pty Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Mr Martin, filed a summons against the defendant, Hume Coal Pty Ltd, seeking an injunction and damages for alleged breaches of environmental protection laws in relation to the defendant's coal mining operations. The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had standing to bring the proceedings, whether the plaintiff's claims were within the jurisdiction of the court, and whether the summons should be dismissed or allowed to proceed to hearing.

The court found that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the proceedings as he was not an authorised person under the relevant environmental legislation. The court also held that the plaintiff's claims were outside the jurisdiction of the court as they were not authorised by the legislation. The court noted that the plaintiff had not provided any evidence to support his claims and that the defendant had raised a valid defence of lack of standing. The court further found that the summons should be dismissed and that the defendant was entitled to costs. The court ordered that the summons be dismissed, that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs unless the plaintiff applied to relist the matter for hearing of argument as to costs within 14 days, and that the exhibits be returned.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

(1) The summons dated 12 May 2015 is dismissed.

(2) Order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings unless within 14 days from the date of these orders the plaintiffs apply to the registrar to relist the matter for the hearing of argument as to costs.

(3) The exhibits are returned.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Martin & Ors v Hume Coal Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 1461
Hearing dates:	27 August ,14,15,16 17 September 2015
Decision date:	13 November 2015
Jurisdiction:	Class 8
Before:	Dixon C
Decision:	The Court orders: (1) The summons dated 12 May 2015 is dismissed. (2) Order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings unless within 14 days from the date of these orders the plaintiffs apply to the registrar to relist the matter for the hearing of argument as to costs. (3) The exhibits are returned.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – mining – exploration licence - meaning of the phrase ‘rights conferred by the licence’ in s31(1) of the Mining Act 1992 – whether the ‘rights conferred by the licence’ in s31 are extended by the terms of the conditions attached to the licence - including a right to access the surface of the land by vehicle to carry out prospecting and/or prospecting operations - whether identified improvements are ‘other valuable works’ and thereby are ‘significant improvements’ under s31(1)
Legislation Cited:	Interpretation Act 1989 (NSW Mining Act 1992 (NSW) Mining Act (Improvement of Lands) Act 2008 (NSW) State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007 (NSW) Mining Act Regulations 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Project Blue Sky Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 Minister for Urban Affairs v Rosemount Estate Pty Ltd (1996) 91 LGERA 31 Warkworth Mining Ltd v Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc [2014] NSWCA 105; (2014) 86 NSWLR 527 Kayuga Coal Pty Ltd v John Ducey [2000] NSWCA 54 CCM Holdings Trust Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2013] NSWSC 1072 Newland Coal Mines Pty Ltd v Minister for Mineral Resources [2007] NSWSC 1299 Lightning Ridge Miners Association Ltd v Slack-Smith and Anor [2013] NSWLEC 1063 Trust Company of Australia Ltd v The Valuer General [2007] NSWCA 181 Goode v Valuer General [1979] 22 SASR 247 Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; 218 CLR 216 Ulan Coal Mines Ltd v Minister For Mineral Resources [2007]NSWSC 1299
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Peter Martin (Applicant 1) Phillip Pollicina (Applicant 2) Fesen Pty Ltd (Applicant 3) Ross Alexander (Applicant 4) Kathleen Roche (Applicant 5) Hume Coal Pty Limited (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Robert White (Applicants) Richard Beasley SC with Amy Knox (Respondent) Solicitors: Marylou Potts Pty Ltd (Applicants) Sparke Helmore Lawyers
File Number(s):	80405 of 2015