Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2021] NSWLEC 110
•18 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc v Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLEC 110
[2021] NSWLEC 110
18 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mullaley Gas and Pipeline Accord Inc commenced proceedings against Santos NSW (Eastern) Pty Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking an injunction to prevent the respondent from continuing to operate a pipeline. The dispute centred on the alleged infringement of the applicant’s pipeline rights under the Pipelines (Petroleum) Act 1994 (Cth) and the relevant rights of way granted by the respondent. The applicant also sought damages for any losses incurred as a result of the respondent’s alleged infringement of its rights.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant’s pipeline rights were valid and enforceable, whether the respondent had infringed upon those rights, and if so, whether an injunction or damages should be awarded. The court also needed to determine the appropriate costs orders in the event that either party sought an order for costs.
The Court dismissed the applicant’s summons, finding that the applicant had not established the necessary jurisdictional requirements to support the grant of an injunction. The Court found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had exclusive rights to the pipeline in question. The Court further found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in the proceedings to justify the grant of an injunction. As such, the Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for injunctive relief. Regarding costs, the Court ordered that if the respondent sought an order for costs, it was to file and serve written submissions on costs by 1 November 2021. The applicant was to file and serve written submissions on costs by 15 November 2021 if the respondent sought a costs order. The Court further ordered that if either party sought an oral hearing on the question of costs, the party was to request an oral hearing in its written submissions. The Court granted the parties liberty to restore the matter for directions on 2 days’ notice.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant’s pipeline rights were valid and enforceable, whether the respondent had infringed upon those rights, and if so, whether an injunction or damages should be awarded. The court also needed to determine the appropriate costs orders in the event that either party sought an order for costs.
The Court dismissed the applicant’s summons, finding that the applicant had not established the necessary jurisdictional requirements to support the grant of an injunction. The Court found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had exclusive rights to the pipeline in question. The Court further found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in the proceedings to justify the grant of an injunction. As such, the Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for injunctive relief. Regarding costs, the Court ordered that if the respondent sought an order for costs, it was to file and serve written submissions on costs by 1 November 2021. The applicant was to file and serve written submissions on costs by 15 November 2021 if the respondent sought a costs order. The Court further ordered that if either party sought an oral hearing on the question of costs, the party was to request an oral hearing in its written submissions. The Court granted the parties liberty to restore the matter for directions on 2 days’ notice.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Costs
-
Interlocutory Orders
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Kingshill Development No 1 Pty Ltd v Port Stephens Council [2025] NSWLEC 1
Cases Citing This Decision
30
Cases Cited
13
Statutory Material Cited
4
Ballina Shire Council v Palm Lake Works Pty Ltd
[2020] NSWLEC 41
Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council
[2011] NSWCA 349
Botany Bay City Council v Saab Corp Pty Ltd
[2011] NSWCA 308