United Plantations (Australia) Pty Ltd v Arco Coal Australia Inc

The plaintiff, United Plantations (Australia) Pty Ltd, is the owner of land in the Emerald coal basin and is seeking to restrain the defendants from trespassing on it. The defendants, a coal-mining group, claim that they are acting under the authority of a mineral development licence granted to them on 1 November 1995, which covers the area where the plaintiff's land is located. The plaintiff argues that the land is excluded from the licence by virtue of s.182(2) of the Mineral Resources Act 1989, as inserted by amendment on 1 May 1995. The defendants argue that the section has no application to their case as the acceptance of the lodgment of the application for the mineral development licence took place before the amendment. The defendants also submit that the acceptance of the lodgment of the application occurred before they made their application for the mining lease. The plaintiff argues that the application was deficient in that it did not comply with the requirements of the Act relating to the contents of such an application, but the defendants submit that any deficiencies were cured before the amendment came into force.

The court found that the acceptance of the lodgment of the application for the mineral development licence took place before the introduction of s.182 on 1 May 1995. The court held that the section is expressed so as to have reference to the application at all, and that it applies only to cases where the chief executive's acceptance of the lodgment takes place after the date of the amendment. Because it is common ground that the acceptance in this case took place before the amendment, it would not come within the description of the circumstances referred to in sub-s.(1)(a) and so by its own definition the section would have no application. The court held that the meaning of the words used in the section is the ordinary and reasonable meaning, and that if a statute provides that if an official does something, then certain consequences will follow, it does not pretend to say that those consequences will follow if the official did it before the statute began. The court also held that it was reasonable for the legislature to respect the position of those who had arranged their affairs in the past on the faith of the law as it then stood by ensuring that the change should operate only from the date of the amendment.

The court found that the lodgment of the application was not noted on the department's computer register, Merlin, until 5 January 1995, and that the lodgment was not accepted until at least after 22 December 1994, which is the critical date. The court found that when the lodgment was accepted, the application complied so substantially with the requirements of the section that it was a valid application at the time, that is, at a time before the amendment that introduced s.182. Alternatively, it was perfected by the answers to the department's requisitions before that time. Consequently, the section did not apply to it. However, if that section did apply to it, its validity would not have affected the exclusive consequences of the application for a mining lease that antedated its lodgment and acceptance, and the land would have been excluded from the application and from the grant that was subsequently made in response to it.

The court dismissed the action with costs, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed.