Re Michael; Ex parte Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd

In this case, Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd sought certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and declaratory relief against the Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator in Western Australia. The Regulator had declined to approve an access arrangement proposed by Epic Energy for a natural gas pipeline. The court was required to determine whether the Regulator misconceived his duty and failed to perform his statutory function, whether he misconstrued the Access Code, failed to consider relevant matters, considered irrelevant matters, and made findings unsupported by evidence. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the application for certiorari was premature and whether the applicants' rights were sufficiently affected.

The court found that the Regulator misconceived his duty and failed to perform his statutory function by misconstruing the Access Code, failing to consider relevant matters, considering irrelevant matters, and making findings unsupported by evidence. The court held that the factors in s 8.10(a) to (k) of the Code were required to be given weight as fundamental elements in the establishment of the initial Capital Base for the Pipeline. The court also found that the application for certiorari was not premature and that the applicants' rights were sufficiently affected. The court granted declaratory relief in accordance with the views of the court and reflected the conclusion reached in the principal decision.

The court made a declaration to the effect that: "The factors in s 8.10(a) to (k) are relevant to, and are to be given weight as fundamental elements in, the establishment of the initial Capital Base for the Pipeline." Additionally, the court made two further declarations concerning the interpretation of the Code, which were intended to provide additional and more specific guidance to the Regulator as he revisited his assessment of the applicants' proposed Access Arrangement. The court held that it was open to it to make such declarations, but that the appropriateness of doing so at that stage of the process in which the Regulator was engaged was in issue.