RE GRAHAM ANSTEE-BROOK; EX PARTE KARARA MINING LTD [2012] WASC 129

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 129
Case No:	CIV:1364/2012	Heard:	16 MARCH 2012
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	20/04/12
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order nisi granted on two grounds Application for stay dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KARARA MINING LTD
Catchwords:	Prerogative writ Certiorari Order nisi Stay of determination Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld) Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 4(2), s 4(3)(c), s 26, s 27, s 27(1), s 31(2), s 31(2)(b), s 46 Rules of the Supreme Court 1975 (WA), O 56 r 3(2)
Case References:	Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (1982) 2 NSWLR 685 Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389 JC Scott Constructions v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd (No 2) [1983] 2 Qd R 255 R J Neller Building Pty Ltd v Ainsworth [2009] 1 Qd R 390 Re Graham Anstee-Brook; Ex Parte Mount Gibson Mining Ltd [2011] WASC 172 Re Her Honour Judge Schoombee; Ex Parte Attorney General for Western Australia [2011] WASC 23 Stampalia v The Stewards of the Western Australian Trotting Association [1999] WASC 7 Woodley v Minister for Indigenous Affairs [2009] WASC 251

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RE GRAHAM ANSTEE-BROOK; EX PARTE KARARA MINING LTD [2012] WASC 129 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 16 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 20 APRIL 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 1364 of 2012 MATTER : An Application for a Writ of Certiorari directed to Mr Graham Anstee-Brook exercising jurisdiction pursuant to the Construction Contracts Act 2004 EX PARTE

KARARA MINING LTD

Applicant

Catchwords:

Prerogative writ - Certiorari - Order nisi - Stay of determination - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2004 (Qld)

Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA), s 4(2), s 4(3)(c), s 26, s 27, s 27(1), s 31(2), s 31(2)(b), s 46
Rules of the Supreme Court 1975 (WA), O 56 r 3(2)

Result:

Order nisi granted on two grounds

(Page 2)

Application for stay dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms P E Cahill SC & Mr A D Bereyne

Solicitors:

Applicant : Jackson McDonald

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

Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (Receivers Appointed) (1982) 2 NSWLR 685
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389
JC Scott Constructions v Mermaid Waters Tavern Pty Ltd (No 2) [1983] 2 Qd R 255
R J Neller Building Pty Ltd v Ainsworth [2009] 1 Qd R 390
Re Graham Anstee-Brook; Ex Parte Mount Gibson Mining Ltd [2011] WASC 172
Re Her Honour Judge Schoombee; Ex Parte Attorney General for Western Australia [2011] WASC 23
Stampalia v The Stewards of the Western Australian Trotting Association [1999] WASC 7
Woodley v Minister for Indigenous Affairs [2009] WASC 251

(Page 3)

1 LE MIERE J:…

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 Re Graham Anstee-Brook; Ex Parte Karara Mining 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: [2012] WASC 129
Decision Date: 20 APRIL 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Graham Anstee-Brook; Ex Parte Karara Mining Ltd involved Karara Mining Ltd seeking to quash a decision made by Graham Anstee-Brook, who was acting in his capacity as a mining inspector. The dispute centred around whether the mining inspector's decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether the court should issue a prerogative writ of certiorari to quash the decision. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the mining inspector's decision was amenable to judicial review and, if so, whether the court should grant the application for a prerogative writ of certiorari. The court also had to consider whether a stay of the determination of the application should be granted to allow for the lodging of an appeal by the mining inspector. The arguments hinged on the scope of judicial review in administrative decisions and the principles governing the issuance of prerogative writs.

The court found that the mining inspector's decision was indeed amenable to judicial review. However, it concluded that the application for a prerogative writ of certiorari should not be granted on the basis that the matter turned on its own unique facts and circumstances. Additionally, the court dismissed the application for a stay, determining that it was not in the interests of justice to grant such a stay. Consequently, the order nisi was granted on the two specified grounds, and the application for a stay was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order nisi granted on two grounds

Application for stay dismissed

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.