Williams v Homestake Australia Ltd and Ors [2002] NSWLEC 5

Williams v Homestake Australia Ltd and Ors [2002] NSWLEC 5

Although the applicant raised a serious question to be tried, the evidence did not establish a reasonable probability, much less inevitability, that the first respondent's exploration activities would damage relics or constitute a threatened offence under National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, s 90. The risk was not high, reasonable precautions were available and in place through the protocol with NPWS, NPWS had investigated and was satisfied there was no apprehended breach, the applicant had not offered the usual undertaking as to damages, and the first respondent would likely suffer financial detriment if work were suspended. The balance of convenience therefore favoured refusing...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Class 4 Application Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Applicant's claim to interlocutory relief refused; limited notice order made; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'threatened Breach of National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, S 90' 'exploration Licence Under Mining Act 1992' 'protection of Relics and Aboriginal Places' 'balance of Convenience']
['environmental Law' 'aboriginal Cultural Heritage' 'mining Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'threatened Breach of National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, S 90' 'exploration Licence Under Mining Act 1992' 'protection of Relics and Aboriginal Places' 'balance of Convenience']

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 Application Seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first and second respondents should be restrained from further exploration activity on the subject land unless they hold a valid consent under National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, s 90.' 'Whether the proposed exploration activities raised a serious question to be tried as to an actual or threatened breach of National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, s 90.' 'Whether irreparable harm would occur if interlocutory relief were refused.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting or withholding the interlocutory injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant raised a serious question to be tried, the evidence did not establish a reasonable probability, much less inevitability, that the first respondent's exploration activities would damage relics or constitute a threatened offence under National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, s 90. The risk was not high, reasonable precautions were available and in place through the protocol with NPWS, NPWS had investigated and was satisfied there was no apprehended breach, the applicant had not offered the usual undertaking as to damages, and the first respondent would likely suffer financial detriment if work were suspended. The balance of convenience therefore favoured refusing...

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim to interlocutory relief refused; limited notice order made; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The first Respondent shall give seven days prior written notice to the Applicant of any proposal of the first and third Respondents to dissolve or to vary the arrangement on Protocol between them (Exhibit E/1).' "In all other respects, the Applicant's claim to interlocutory relief is dismissed." 'Exhibits to be...