Qld Cooper Shale Pty Ltd and Qld Cooper Energy Pty Ltd and Qld Shale Gas Pty Ltd v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines
Case
•
[2015] QSC 360
•15 December 2015
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Qld Cooper Shale Pty Ltd and Qld Cooper Energy Pty Ltd and Qld Shale Gas Pty Ltd v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines [2015] QSC 360
[2015] QSC 360
15 December 2015
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the Court was an application for review of a decision made by the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, represented by Mr Warren Cooper, to not approve the program of work accompanying an application for exploration permit under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA). The applicants sought to challenge the decision on the basis that it was affected by error of law, was an improper exercise of power, and involved irrelevant considerations. Both parties referred to provisions of the MRA and the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (PGA) in support of their respective contentions.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the decision made by Mr Cooper was affected by error of law, was an improper exercise of power, or involved irrelevant considerations. The Court considered whether the decision-maker had regard to all relevant considerations and whether any irrelevant considerations were taken into account. The Court also examined whether the decision-maker had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions.
In assessing the decision, the Court noted that the decision-maker had considered the rationale behind the work program, as required by the guidelines issued under the MRA. The Court found that the decision-maker had exercised his power in accordance with the law and had not been affected by any error of law. The Court also held that the decision was not an improper exercise of power, as the decision-maker had considered all relevant matters and had not taken into account any irrelevant considerations. The Court further held that the decision-maker had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions.
The Court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis. The parties have liberty to apply by written submission seeking a different or varied order with respect to costs within 28 days.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the decision made by Mr Cooper was affected by error of law, was an improper exercise of power, or involved irrelevant considerations. The Court considered whether the decision-maker had regard to all relevant considerations and whether any irrelevant considerations were taken into account. The Court also examined whether the decision-maker had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions.
In assessing the decision, the Court noted that the decision-maker had considered the rationale behind the work program, as required by the guidelines issued under the MRA. The Court found that the decision-maker had exercised his power in accordance with the law and had not been affected by any error of law. The Court also held that the decision was not an improper exercise of power, as the decision-maker had considered all relevant matters and had not taken into account any irrelevant considerations. The Court further held that the decision-maker had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions.
The Court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis. The parties have liberty to apply by written submission seeking a different or varied order with respect to costs within 28 days.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Interpretation
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Qld Cooper Shale Pty Ltd v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines [2016] QCA 352
Cases Citing This Decision
2
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
0
Craig v South Australia
[1995] HCA 58
Scanruby Pty Ltd v Caltex Petroleum Pty Ltd
[2001] NSWSC 411