Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Limited v Mine Subsidence Board [2009] NSWLEC 106

Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Limited v Mine Subsidence Board [2009] NSWLEC 106

The applicant could not recover under s 12A(1)(b) because the anticipated damage to the pipeline was not shown to arise from the subsidence that had already taken place in October 2005. Although a temporal connection might be established, the necessary causal connection was not. The later predicted subsidence from...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Rejection of a Claim for Compensation Under the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 / Determination of a Separate Question of Law
Outcome
The separate question was answered "NO".
Legal Topics
['claim for Preventative or Mitigating Works' 'actual Subsidence Versus Anticipated Subsidence' 'causal Connection Between Subsidence and Anticipated Damage' 'separate Question Potentially Determinative of Appeal']
['mine Subsidence Compensation' 'statutory Interpretation' 'environmental and Planning Law'] ['claim for Preventative or Mitigating Works' 'actual Subsidence Versus Anticipated Subsidence' 'causal Connection Between Subsidence and Anticipated Damage' 'separate Question Potentially Determinative of Appeal']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Rejection of a Claim for Compensation Under the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 / Determination of a Separate Question of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was entitled to an amount under section 12A(1)(b) of the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 in respect of expenses incurred in performing works on the Sydney to Moomba Gas Pipeline where subsidence had occurred at or near Mallaty Creek in or about October 2005, assuming the expenses were proper and necessary.' 'Whether section 12A(1)(b) applies where the anticipated damage is premised on the cumulative effect of existing subsidence and anticipated further subsidence.' 'Whether the expenses incurred had the necessary causal and temporal connection with a subsidence that had taken place.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant could not recover under s 12A(1)(b) because the anticipated damage to the pipeline was not shown to arise from the subsidence that had already taken place in October 2005. Although a temporal connection might be established, the necessary causal connection was not. The later predicted subsidence from subsequent longwall mining was not part of a single incident of subsidence that had already occurred, and the appropriate statutory mechanism for works undertaken before anticipated subsidence was s 13A, not s 12A(1)(b).

Court Disposition

The separate question was answered "NO".

Orders

  • ['The question before the court is answered "NO".' 'The exhibits are to remain on the court file.' 'The matter will be listed for mention before Sheahan J at 9am on Friday 17 July 2009 for further consideration of the costs consequences of the answer to the question and the further disposition of the appeal itself.']