Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources and Energy [2014] NSWLEC 33

Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd v Minister for Resources and Energy [2014] NSWLEC 33

The applicant's proposed amendments relating to breach of s 65 of the Mining Act were not fairly arguable because the retrospective provisions introduced by cl 143 of Sch 6 (as amended in 2013) operated to deem the mining leases always to have complied with s 65, notwithstanding the nature of the development consent in force. Consequently, those amendments were refused. Amendments relating to breach of s 51, manifest unreasonableness, and failure to take relevant considerations into account (other than reference to non-statutory documents) were allowed, as they were not opposed and were not shown to be unarguable.

Parties
Applicant: Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Minister for Resources and Energy; Second Respondent: Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion—application to Amend Pleadings; Summary Dismissal Motion
Outcome
Application to amend allowed in part; Minister's summary dismissal application dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Statutory Interpretation, Mining Lease Validity, Relevant Considerations, Summary Dismissal
Administrative Law Mining Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Statutory Interpretation Mining Lease Validity Relevant Considerations Summary Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gold and Copper Resources Pty Ltd

Applicant

Minister for Resources and Energy

First Respondent

Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interlocutory Motion—application to Amend Pleadings; Summary Dismissal Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to amend its Points of Claim to challenge the validity of two mining leases on various grounds, including alleged breach of s 65 and s 51 of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW), manifest unreasonableness and relevant considerations.
  2. 2 Whether the amendments raise claims that are fairly arguable, or are so obviously untenable they should be struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the amendments to the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) by the Mining Amendment (Development Consent) Act 2013 (NSW) provide a 'complete answer' to the s 65 challenge.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's proposed amendments relating to breach of s 65 of the Mining Act were not fairly arguable because the retrospective provisions introduced by cl 143 of Sch 6 (as amended in 2013) operated to deem the mining leases always to have complied with s 65, notwithstanding the nature of the development consent in force. Consequently, those amendments were refused. Amendments relating to breach of s 51, manifest unreasonableness, and failure to take relevant considerations into account (other than reference to non-statutory documents) were allowed, as they were not opposed and were not shown to be unarguable.

Court Disposition

Application to amend allowed in part; Minister's summary dismissal application dismissed

Orders

  • Direct that the parties bring in short minutes of order consistent with these reasons for judgment.
  • Costs may be argued.