Rio Tinto Limited v The Australian Competition Tribunal

Rio Tinto Limited brought an application against the Australian Competition Tribunal, challenging the decision of the Tribunal which had dismissed Rio Tinto’s appeal against the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum's (the "Department") refusal to approve an application by Fortescue Metals Group (FMG) for the transfer of certain mining leases. The dispute centred on whether the Department had acted within its powers in refusing to approve the transfer of FMG's mining leases to Rio Tinto, arguing that the service provided by FMG to the Department was not in conformity with the service described in FMG's application. Rio Tinto argued that the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of the correspondence between FMG and the Department, and that this correspondence should have been taken into account in determining whether the service provided was in conformity with the application.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in its consideration of the correspondence between FMG and the Department, and whether this correspondence should have been taken into account in determining whether the service provided was in conformity with the application. The court was also required to determine whether the Tribunal had acted within its powers in dismissing Rio Tinto’s appeal.

The court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its consideration of the correspondence between FMG and the Department. The court found that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the substance of the service described in FMG's application, and that the correspondence was relevant in determining whether the service provided was in conformity with the application. The court also found that the Tribunal had acted within its powers in dismissing Rio Tinto’s appeal, as the Department had not acted beyond its powers in refusing to approve the transfer of FMG's mining leases to Rio Tinto.

The court dismissed the application brought by Rio Tinto and ordered that Rio Tinto pay the costs of FMG and the Council. The court found that there was no order as to the costs of the BHP Billiton parties which supported the application made by Rio Tinto.