The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Brockman Iron Pty Ltd

[2014] WASC 345

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Implications into statutes and regulations
3. › Whether implication should be made into statutory text
4. › Test for implication
5. › Whether words can be implied to require 'genuineness' of proposal
6. › Railways (Access) Code 2000 (WA), s 8
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Purposive construction
3. › Competition access regime
4. › Whether purpose clause constrains meaning of operative provisions
5. › Railways (Access) Act 1998 (WA), s 2A
6. › Railways (Access) Code 2000 (WA), s 8
1. Infrastructure Law
2. › Rail access
3. › Validity of proposal for access
4. › Requirements of s 8 of Railways (Access) Code 2000 (WA)
5. › Whether proponent must have genuine intention to use infrastructure
6. › Whether proposal must be for sole subjective purpose of carrying on rail operations
7. › Whether proposal must be for immediate access
8. › Degree of precision required in indicating times for access
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Uplift of costs limits in Scale
4. › Principles governing uplift under s 280(2) Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
5. › Whether unusual difficulty, complexity or importance of matter warrants uplift
6. › Whether hourly rates for Senior Counsel and Counsel should be uplifted

Quick Take

A proposal for access under s 8 of the Railways (Access) Code 2000 (WA) is valid if it meets the express textual requirements of s 8; there is no implied requirement that the proponent have a genuine intention to use the infrastructure, that the proposal be for the sole subjective purpose of carrying on rail operations, or that the proponent be in a position to immediately enter into an access agreement. The 'purpose' requirement in s 8(2)(b) is assessed objectively from the terms of the proposal document, not by reference to the subjective motives of the proponent or its directors. The requirement to 'indicate' times for access requires only an approximate or general statement, not precise specification.