Williams v Homestake Australia Limited & Ors. [2002] NSWLEC 68

Williams v Homestake Australia Limited & Ors. [2002] NSWLEC 68

The adjournment was granted because, although the Applicant had not shown that the first and second Respondents wilfully or deliberately frustrated his archaeological investigations, refusal would very seriously prejudice his claims to similar injunctive relief over other lands, at least lot 24 might contain relics vulnerable to damage from exploratory mining activities, and that prejudice outweighed the prejudice to the first and second Respondents from having the outstanding claims remain unresolved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Proceedings Claiming Injunctive Relief to Protect Aboriginal Relics / Final Hearing; Application to Adjourn Claims for Additional Relief After Interim Injunction and Proposed Consent Permanent Injunction
Outcome
Applicant's adjournment application granted; short minutes directed for consent final disposal concerning lot 23 and the Game Reserve; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'injunctions' 'aboriginal Relics' 'exploratory Mining Activities' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act 1974']
['environmental Law' 'civil Procedure' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage'] ['adjournment' 'injunctions' 'aboriginal Relics' 'exploratory Mining Activities' 'national Parks and Wildlife Act 1974']

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

Procedural Posture

Class 4 Proceedings Claiming Injunctive Relief to Protect Aboriginal Relics / Final Hearing; Application to Adjourn Claims for Additional Relief After Interim Injunction and Proposed Consent Permanent Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Applicant's claims for relief concerning lands other than lot 23 and the Game Reserve should be adjourned." "Whether the first and second Respondents had wilfully or deliberately frustrated the Applicant's archaeological investigations." 'Whether the prejudice to the Applicant if an adjournment were refused outweighed the prejudice to the first and second Respondents if it were granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was granted because, although the Applicant had not shown that the first and second Respondents wilfully or deliberately frustrated his archaeological investigations, refusal would very seriously prejudice his claims to similar injunctive relief over other lands, at least lot 24 might contain relics vulnerable to damage from exploratory mining activities, and that prejudice outweighed the prejudice to the first and second Respondents from having the outstanding claims remain unresolved.

Court Disposition

Applicant's adjournment application granted; short minutes directed for consent final disposal concerning lot 23 and the Game Reserve; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's application to adjourn the hearing of his claim to relief in respect of land referred to in par 1 of his amended class 4 application filed 4 March 2002 (other than lot 23 and the Game Reserve) is granted. Liberty to apply on three days' Notice." 'The parties are directed to bring in short minutes...