RE MICHAEL; EX PARTE WMC RESOURCES LTD [2003] WASCA 288
| (2003) 27 WAR 574 | |||
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 288 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CIV:1584/2003 | 6 & 7 OCTOBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | PARKER J TEMPLEMAN J MILLER J | 2/12/03 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Declaratory relief granted | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WMC RESOURCES LTD (ACN 004 184 598) THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA THE HONOURABLE CLIVE MORRIS BROWN MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT TOURISM SMALL BUSINESS THE HONOURABLE ERIC STEPHEN RIPPER MINISTER FOR ENERGY WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDEPENDENT GAS PIPELINES ACCESS REGULATOR SOURTHERN CROSS PIPELINES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD SOURTHERN CROSS PIPELINES (NPL) AUST LTD DUKE ENERGY WA PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Administrative law Prohibition Revision of draft decision by Regulator Detailed statutory stages for decision Whether application premature Whether rights sufficiently affected Prohibition available Declaratory relief granted instead of prerogative relief Regulators undertaking to act in accordance with declaratory relief Contract Agreement between State and joint venturers to construct and operate a gas pipeline Agreement ratified by statute Agreement to take "effect despite any other Act or law" Provisions of Agreement purporting to limit the application to pipeline of future Acts and laws Whether provisions affect the operation of a future Act Energy and resources Gas National Third Party Access Code for natural Gas Pipeline Systems 1997 "Covered Pipeline" Third Party access to pipeline Assessment for approval by Regulator of proposed Access Arrangement Whether Regulator acting beyond jurisdiction in considering Agreement binding on State and present owners of pipeline purporting to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline |
Legislation: | Gas Pipelines Access (Western Australia) Act 1998 (WA), s 4(1), s 97(4) Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994 (WA), s 4(3) Government Agreements Act 1979 (WA), s 3 Iron Ore (McCameys Monster) Agreement Authorization Act 1972, s 3 National Third Party Access Code for Natural Gas Pipeline Systems 1997 |
Case References: | Kartinyeri & Anor v The Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 R v Australian Stevedoring Industry Board; Ex parte Melbourne Stevedoring Company Proprietary Ltd (1953) 88 CLR 100 R v Hickman (1945) 70 CLR 598 Re Adams & The Tax Agents' Board (1976) 12 ALR 239 Re Michael; Ex parte Epic Energy (WA) Nominees Pty Ltd (2002) 25 WAR 511 Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 Southern Cross Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd & Ors v Kenneth Comininos Michael, Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator & Anor [2002] WASC 149 The South-Eastern Drainage Board (South Australia) v The Savings Bank of South Australia (1939) 62 CLR 603 Trajkovski v Telstra Corporation Ltd (1998) 81 FCR 459 Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 Amherst v Walker (James) Goldsmith & Silversmith Ltd (1980) 254 E G 123 Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 Aussie Airlines Pty Ltd v Australian Airlines… |
Continue reading Re Michael; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Re Michael; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd [2003] WASCA 288
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 288
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Re Michael; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd, the applicant, WMC Resources Ltd, sought to challenge a draft decision made by the Regulator, which was the body responsible for overseeing the implementation of the National Third Party Access Code for natural Gas Pipeline Systems 1997. The dispute arose in the Federal Court of Australia and centred on the Regulator's consideration of a contract between the State and joint venturers to construct and operate a gas pipeline. The contract, which had been ratified by statute, contained provisions purporting to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline. WMC Resources Ltd argued that the Regulator was acting beyond its jurisdiction by considering the contract as binding on the State and the present owners of the pipeline, and that this would affect its rights under the Third Party Access Code.
The legal issues before the court included whether the application was premature, whether the applicant's rights had been sufficiently affected, and whether the court should grant declaratory relief instead of prerogative relief. The court was also required to determine whether the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline were effective, and whether the Regulator was acting beyond its jurisdiction in considering these provisions.
The court found that the application was not premature, as the applicant's rights had been sufficiently affected by the Regulator's consideration of the contract. The court held that the Regulator was acting beyond its jurisdiction in considering the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline, as this would have the effect of limiting the operation of the Third Party Access Code. However, the court granted declaratory relief instead of prerogative relief, as the Regulator had undertaken to act in accordance with the terms of the declaratory relief. This meant that the Regulator would not consider the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline in its decision-making process.
The final orders of the court were that declaratory relief was granted, and the Regulator was required to act in accordance with the terms of the declaratory relief. This meant that the Regulator would not consider the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline in its decision-making process. The court's decision provided clarity on the scope of the Regulator's jurisdiction and the effect of the contract on the operation of the Third Party Access Code.
The legal issues before the court included whether the application was premature, whether the applicant's rights had been sufficiently affected, and whether the court should grant declaratory relief instead of prerogative relief. The court was also required to determine whether the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline were effective, and whether the Regulator was acting beyond its jurisdiction in considering these provisions.
The court found that the application was not premature, as the applicant's rights had been sufficiently affected by the Regulator's consideration of the contract. The court held that the Regulator was acting beyond its jurisdiction in considering the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline, as this would have the effect of limiting the operation of the Third Party Access Code. However, the court granted declaratory relief instead of prerogative relief, as the Regulator had undertaken to act in accordance with the terms of the declaratory relief. This meant that the Regulator would not consider the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline in its decision-making process.
The final orders of the court were that declaratory relief was granted, and the Regulator was required to act in accordance with the terms of the declaratory relief. This meant that the Regulator would not consider the provisions of the contract that purported to limit the application of future Acts and laws to the pipeline in its decision-making process. The court's decision provided clarity on the scope of the Regulator's jurisdiction and the effect of the contract on the operation of the Third Party Access Code.
Orders
Orders of the court
Declaratory relief granted
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.