Re Michael; Ex parte WMC Resources Ltd

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.