Re Warden P Roth; [No 2]

Case [2011] WASC 343

RE WARDEN P ROTH; EX PARTE CAZALY IRON PTY LTD [No 2] [2011] WASC 343



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2011] WASC 343
07/12/2011
Case No:CIV:1850/20117 DECEMBER 2011
Coram:BEECH J7/12/11
11Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Show cause order made absolute
B
PDF Version
Parties:CAZALY IRON PTY LTD

Catchwords:
Administrative law
Procedural fairness
Whether applicant had a right to be heard prior to a decision that its applications for exploration licences not be included in a ballot under s 105A Mining Act 1978 (WA)
Whether warden's conduct was contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness
Whether in the circumstances procedural fairness required the warden to reveal his tentative conclusion that the applications did not comply with the initial requirements
Whether warden's conclusion could not reasonably have been anticipated

Legislation:
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 58, s 105A

Case References:
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149
Re Warden P Roth; Ex parte Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 226
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : RE WARDEN P ROTH; EX PARTE CAZALY IRON PTY LTD [No 2] [2011] WASC 343 CORAM : BEECH J HEARD : 7 DECEMBER 2011 DELIVERED : 7 DECEMBER 2011 PUBLISHED : 7 DECEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 1850 of 2011 MATTER : An application for a writ of certiorari directed to Warden P Roth, Warden of Mines sitting in Karratha EX PARTE

    CAZALY IRON PTY LTD
    Applicant

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Procedural fairness - Whether applicant had a right to be heard prior to a decision that its applications for exploration licences not be included in a ballot under s 105A Mining Act 1978 (WA) - Whether warden's conduct was contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness - Whether in the circumstances procedural fairness required the warden to reveal his tentative conclusion that the applications did not comply with the initial requirements - Whether warden's conclusion could not reasonably have been anticipated

Legislation:

Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 58, s 105A


(Page 2)



Result:

Show cause order made absolute

Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Applicant : Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Ms S V van den Hoogen

Solicitors:

    Applicant : DLA Piper Australia



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

Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149
Re Warden P Roth; Ex parte Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd [2011] WASC 226
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141


(Page 3)
    BEECH J:




Introduction

1 The applicant lodged applications for exploration licences. By letter of 29 November 2010, the warden determined that the applicant's applications did not meet the initial requirements under s 58 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (the Act) and consequently would be excluded from the ballot under s 105A of the Act.

2 On 30 August 2011, I granted an order nisi requiring…

Continue reading Re Warden P Roth; [No 2]

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Re Warden P Roth; [No 2] [2011] WASC 343
Case
[2011] WASC 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case, Re Warden P Roth; [No 2], involved the applicant, an exploration company, and the Warden, who is responsible for administering the Mining Act 1978 (WA). The applicant had applied for exploration licences but was informed that its applications would not be included in the ballot under section 105A of the Act. The applicant sought a review of the Warden's decision, arguing that it had not been given an opportunity to be heard prior to the decision, which was contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a right to be heard before the Warden made the decision and whether the Warden's conduct was contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness. The court also had to determine whether procedural fairness required the Warden to reveal his tentative conclusion that the applications did not comply with the initial requirements and whether the Warden's conclusion could not reasonably have been anticipated.

The court held that the applicant did not have a right to be heard before the Warden made the decision, as the decision was not a decision that would affect the applicant's legal rights, interests or obligations. However, the court found that the Warden's conduct was contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness, as he did not reveal his tentative conclusion that the applications did not comply with the initial requirements. The court held that in the circumstances, procedural fairness required the Warden to reveal his tentative conclusion to the applicant, as it could reasonably have been anticipated. The court made the show cause order absolute, ordering the Warden to pay the applicant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Show cause order made absolute

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.