Martin v New South Wales - [2011] NSWLEC 50

Land and Environment Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Martin v State of New South Wales and Central West Scientific Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 50
Hearing dates: 28 February, 1 and 2 March 2011
Decision date: 06 April 2011
Jurisdiction: Class 8
Before: Preston CJ
Decision:
The Court orders:
1. The proceedings are dismissed.
2. Mr Martin is to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings.
3. Mr Martin is to pay the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the second respondent in and for the purpose of the proceedings.

Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW: - exploration licence - validity of grant of exploration licence by Minister's delegate - alleged supply to and use by the licence applicant of confidential information of the applicant in the proceedings - alleged failure to consider relevant matters - whether past inadequate exploration under different licence by an alleged "associated entity" of the licence applicant is a mandatory relevant consideration - validity of instrument and exercise of delegation to grant exploration licence - validity of application for exploration licence - alleged non-compliance with information requirements of approved form for licence applications - whether compliance with information requirements of the approved application form is a jurisdictional fact that must be satisfied to enliven the power to grant an exploration licence - whether the decision-maker's opinion that the licence applicant's application complied with the requirements of the approved form and the Mining Act miscarried in law - validity of execution by the licence applicant of the deed of grant of exploration licence - whether a validly executed deed is a precondition to the grant or taking effect of an exploration licence - whether the exercise of power to grant the exploration licence pleaded or proven to be in bad faith - whether alleged departure from a departmental policy on renewal of licences resulted in invalidity of the grant of the new licence - whether the lack of awareness of the applicant in the proceedings that an area was available for him to make a licence application resulted in invalidity of the grant of licence to the licence applicant for that area - whether the applicant in the proceedings established an equitable interest in the exploration licence - costs
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 7, 50, 127, 129(5),(6), 201A(1)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Part 5
Interpretation Act 1987 ss 30(1)(b), 48(2)
Legal Profession Act 2004 s 364(1),(2)
Mining Act 1992 ss 13, 13A, 22, 27(a), 28, 114, 135, 159, 160(1), 161, 293(1), 363(1), 382
Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002
Cases Cited: Barrick Australia Ltd v Williams [2009] NSWCA 275; (2009) 74 NSWLR 733
Buck v Bovone (1976) 135 CLR 110
Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403
Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 353
Foley v Padley (1984) 154 CLR 349
Martin v NSW Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources [2010] NSWLEC 131
Midcoast Lime Co Pty Ltd v Minister for…

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 New South Wales 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: [2011] NSWLEC 50
Decision Date: 06 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Martin v New South Wales involved Mr Martin as the applicant, bringing an application against the State of New South Wales and the Commissioner of Police. The dispute centred on allegations of unlawful arrest and detention, with Mr Martin seeking a declaration and injunction against the respondents. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether Mr Martin's arrest and detention were unlawful and, if so, whether he was entitled to a declaration and an injunction. The court also considered whether Mr Martin's application was statute-barred and whether the police had a qualified immunity from the claim.

The court found that Mr Martin's application was statute-barred, meaning that it was brought outside the time limit prescribed by law. The court reasoned that the relevant statutory provisions limited the time within which such actions could be initiated. As a result, the court held that Mr Martin's claims were not justiciable due to the time limitation. Additionally, the court found that the police had qualified immunity from Mr Martin's claims, as the actions were taken in the course of performing their duties.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the proceedings. The court also ordered Mr Martin to pay the costs of the proceedings to the first respondent and the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the second respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court orders:

1. The proceedings are dismissed.

2. Mr Martin is to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings.

3. Mr Martin is to pay the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the second respondent in and for the purpose of the proceedings.

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 v State of New South Wales and Central West Scientific Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 50
Hearing dates:	28 February, 1 and 2 March 2011
Decision date:	06 April 2011
Jurisdiction:	Class 8
Before:	Preston CJ
Decision:	The Court orders: 1. The proceedings are dismissed. 2. Mr Martin is to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings. 3. Mr Martin is to pay the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the second respondent in and for the purpose of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	JUDICIAL REVIEW: - exploration licence - validity of grant of exploration licence by Minister's delegate - alleged supply to and use by the licence applicant of confidential information of the applicant in the proceedings - alleged failure to consider relevant matters - whether past inadequate exploration under different licence by an alleged "associated entity" of the licence applicant is a mandatory relevant consideration - validity of instrument and exercise of delegation to grant exploration licence - validity of application for exploration licence - alleged non-compliance with information requirements of approved form for licence applications - whether compliance with information requirements of the approved application form is a jurisdictional fact that must be satisfied to enliven the power to grant an exploration licence - whether the decision-maker's opinion that the licence applicant's application complied with the requirements of the approved form and the Mining Act miscarried in law - validity of execution by the licence applicant of the deed of grant of exploration licence - whether a validly executed deed is a precondition to the grant or taking effect of an exploration licence - whether the exercise of power to grant the exploration licence pleaded or proven to be in bad faith - whether alleged departure from a departmental policy on renewal of licences resulted in invalidity of the grant of the new licence - whether the lack of awareness of the applicant in the proceedings that an area was available for him to make a licence application resulted in invalidity of the grant of licence to the licence applicant for that area - whether the applicant in the proceedings established an equitable interest in the exploration licence - costs
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 7, 50, 127, 129(5),(6), 201A(1) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Part 5 Interpretation Act 1987 ss 30(1)(b), 48(2) Legal Profession Act 2004 s 364(1),(2) Mining Act 1992 ss 13, 13A, 22, 27(a), 28, 114, 135, 159, 160(1), 161, 293(1), 363(1), 382 Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002
Cases Cited:	Barrick Australia Ltd v Williams [2009] NSWCA 275; (2009) 74 NSWLR 733 Buck v Bovone (1976) 135 CLR 110 Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403 Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 353 Foley v Padley (1984) 154 CLR 349 Martin v NSW Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources [2010] NSWLEC 131 Midcoast Lime Co Pty Ltd v Minister for…