Re Warden P Roth;

The matter before the court involved an application by an applicant, whose applications for exploration licences were not included in a ballot, to the Warden of the relevant mining district under section 105A of the Mining Act 1978 (WA). The applicant sought a show cause order, contending that the Warden's decision to exclude its applications from the ballot was flawed and required the Warden to reveal his tentative conclusion that the applications did not comply with the initial requirements. The central issue was whether the Warden's conduct was contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness, and whether the applicant had a right to be heard prior to the decision being made.

The court was required to determine whether the Warden's decision to exclude the applicant's applications from the ballot without prior notice or opportunity to be heard was in breach of procedural fairness. The court needed to examine whether the Warden had a tentative conclusion that the applications did not meet the initial requirements, and if so, whether this conclusion should have been disclosed to the applicant. The applicant argued that the Warden's conduct was unfair and that the Warden should have revealed his tentative conclusion to allow the applicant an opportunity to address any issues before a final decision was made.

The court found that the Warden's conduct was indeed contrary to the requirements of procedural fairness. The Warden had formed a tentative conclusion that the applications did not comply with the initial requirements, and this conclusion should have been disclosed to the applicant. The court held that in the circumstances, procedural fairness required the Warden to reveal his tentative conclusion to the applicant, giving them an opportunity to respond before a final decision was made. The court granted the order nisi, requiring the Warden to reveal his tentative conclusion and allow the applicant to address any issues before the final decision was made.