Ulan Coal Mines v Minister for Mineral Resources & Anor (No. 2) [2008] NSWCA 251

Ulan Coal Mines v Minister for Mineral Resources & Anor (No. 2) [2008] NSWCA 251

The retrospective operation of the Mining Amendment (Improvements on Land) Act 2008 meant that the declaration that mining leases 1605 and 1606 were void could not be made and no useful declaration as to earlier voidness should be made. However, Ulan should have succeeded before the primary judge on the law as it then stood concerning s 62(1)(c) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) and s 75V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), while it also failed on a number of issues and both sides had partial success on factual issues; therefore each party should bear its own costs before the primary judge. On appeal, Moolarben should pay 75 percent of Ulan's costs because Ulan...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Consequential Orders / Written Submissions Following Publication of Reasons for Determination of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part as to costs; otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['mining Leases' 'retrospective Legislation' 'declaratory Relief' 'costs on Appeal' 'consequential Orders' 'construction of S 62(1)(c) of the Mining Act 1992 (nsw)' 'construction of S 75 V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)']
['administrative Law' 'mining Law' 'environmental Planning Law' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['mining Leases' 'retrospective Legislation' 'declaratory Relief' 'costs on Appeal' 'consequential Orders' 'construction of S 62(1)(c) of the Mining Act 1992 (nsw)' 'construction of S 75 V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (nsw)']

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

Appeal; Consequential Orders / Written Submissions Following Publication of Reasons for Determination of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, in light of the Mining Amendment (Improvements on Land) Act 2008, there was utility in making the declaration sought by Ulan that mining leases 1605 and 1606 were void.' 'What costs orders should be made for the proceedings before the primary judge.' "What costs orders should be made for the appeal, including whether the Minister should pay Ulan's costs of the appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

The retrospective operation of the Mining Amendment (Improvements on Land) Act 2008 meant that the declaration that mining leases 1605 and 1606 were void could not be made and no useful declaration as to earlier voidness should be made. However, Ulan should have succeeded before the primary judge on the law as it then stood concerning s 62(1)(c) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) and s 75V of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), while it also failed on a number of issues and both sides had partial success on factual issues; therefore each party should bear its own costs before the primary judge. On appeal, Moolarben should pay 75 percent of Ulan's costs because Ulan...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part as to costs; otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal and quash the order made by the primary judge with respect to the costs of the hearing.' 'Otherwise dismiss the appeal.' 'The appellant and the second respondent are to bear their own costs of the hearing before the primary judge.' "The second respondent is to pay 75 percent of the appellant's...