Haoma Mining Nl v Tunza Holdings Pty Ltd & Anor

(2006) 31 WAR 270; [2006] WASCA 19

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Mining
2. › Expenditure requirements
3. › Application for exemption from expenditure conditions
4. › Whether Warden properly considered submissions on s 102(2)(b) and s 102(3)
5. › Whether Warden addressed merits of case
6. › Mining Act 1978 (WA), ss 102(2)(a), 102(2)(b), 102(3)
1. Mining
2. › Expenditure requirements
3. › Exemption from expenditure conditions
4. › Construction of s 102(4)
5. › Meaning of 'current grounds upon which exemptions have been granted'
6. › Whether Warden may take into account previous failures to meet expenditure requirements which were the subject of certificates of exemption
7. › Mining Act 1978 (WA), ss 102(4), 103, 96(2a)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative relief
3. › Certiorari
4. › Review of Warden's recommendation under Mining Act
5. › Whether error of law on face of record

Quick Take

The phrase 'current grounds upon which exemptions have been granted' in s 102(4) of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) means those of the current grounds relied upon for exemption as have previously resulted in the grant of an exemption for the same tenement. Previous failures to meet expenditure requirements may be taken into account when considering a fresh exemption application, even where certificates of exemption were granted in respect of those failures and regardless of the grounds upon which those exemptions were granted, provided the decision-maker does not ignore the fact of the previous exemptions. This does not undermine s 103 (effect of exemption) or s 96(2a) (time limits for forfeiture applications).