Williams v Homestake Australia Ltd and Ors [2002] NSWLEC 43

Williams v Homestake Australia Ltd and Ors [2002] NSWLEC 43

The Court concluded that there was a serious question to be tried regarding an apprehended breach of s 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act due to the presence of relics at risk from exploration activities. Accepting the applicant’s archaeological evidence, Bignold J found a strong probability of damage to relics if activities continued, and that the balance of convenience favoured restraining such activities until the substantive hearing or statutory consents were obtained. Accordingly, an interlocutory injunction was granted prohibiting the relevant activities, subject to opportunity for respondents to seek variation upon change of circumstances or production of proper permits or...

Parties
Applicant: Williams; First Respondent: Homestake Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Barrick Corporation; Third Respondent: The Director General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted; first respondent's motion dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Protection of Relics, Apprehended Breach of S 90 of National Parks and Wildlife Act, Balance of Convenience
Environmental Law Planning Law Interlocutory Injunction Protection of Relics Apprehended Breach of S 90 of National Parks and Wildlife Act 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Williams

Applicant

Homestake Australia Limited

First Respondent

Barrick Corporation

Second Respondent

The Director General of the National Parks and Wildlife Service

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain activities alleged to risk contravening s 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether granting the injunction would appropriately balance the risk of irreparable harm to relics against commercial prejudice to respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded that there was a serious question to be tried regarding an apprehended breach of s 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act due to the presence of relics at risk from exploration activities. Accepting the applicant’s archaeological evidence, Bignold J found a strong probability of damage to relics if activities continued, and that the balance of convenience favoured restraining such activities until the substantive hearing or statutory consents were obtained. Accordingly, an interlocutory injunction was granted prohibiting the relevant activities, subject to opportunity for respondents to seek variation upon change of circumstances or production of proper permits or...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted; first respondent's motion dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Until further order, first and second Respondents are restrained from carrying out activity on lot 23 DP 753097 or the adjoining Game Reserve involving movement of vehicles and machinery used for exploratory drilling.
  • Leave for first and second Respondents to apply for variation/discharge of injunction if (A) appropriate permit/consent under NP&W Act ss 87 or 90 is obtained allowing activities without risk of contravention, or (B) Court is satisfied after report that activities may resume without risk of contravention.