. (0% CATCHWORDS Practice and Procedure - application to amend - Court shall so far as possible completely and finally determine all matters in controversy between the parties. Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.22 EX PARTE PEKO WALLSEND _ LIMITED, PEKO EXPLORATION LIMITED, PEKO-WALLSEND OPERATIONS LIMITED, ELECTROLYTIC ZINC COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA LIMITED (Applicants) THE HONOURABLE BARRY COHEN, Minister for Arts, Heritage & Environment (First respondent) DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS & WILDLIFE (Second respondent) and ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY (Third respondent) No. NTG8 of 1986 Beaumont, J. Sydney 22 December 1986 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NTG8 of 1986 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: EX PARTE PEKO WALLSEND LIMITED PEKO EXPLORATION LIMITED PEKO-WALLSEND OPERATIONS LIMITED ELECTROLYTIC ZINC COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA LIMITED Applicants z o THE HONOURABLE BARRY COHEN Minister for Arts, Heritage & Environment First respondent DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS & WILDLIFE Second respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY Third respondent MINUTES OF ORDER Judge making order: Beaumont, J. Date order made: 22 December 1986 Where made: Sydney THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Grant leave to the applicants to amend their application by adding new paras.5A and 5B in the terms set out in these reasons for judgment. 2. Reserve costs. 3. Stand matter over to a date to be fixed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. ~ IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NTG8 of 1986 GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN : CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 22 December 1986 ) ) EX PARTE PEKO WALLSEND LIMITED PEKO EXPLORATION LIMITED PEKO-WALLSEND OPERATIONS LIMITED ELECTROLYTIC ZINC COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA LIMITED Applicants THE HONOURABLE BARRY COHEN Minister for Arts, Heritage & Environment First respondent DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL PARKS & WILDLIFE Second respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY Third respondent . REASONS FOR JUDGMENT The background to this application made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 appears in the reasons given this day 1n matter NTG 9 of 1986 heard together with these proceedings. The applicants seek judicial review of a number of decisions made in relation to the revised plan of management submitted by the second at 2. respondent to the first respondent on 16 September 1986. The applicants claim that the decisions in question were vitiated by several errors of law. The applicants originally sought the following relief: wl. A declaration that the said revised Plan of Management is ultra vires in that it is inconsistent with or repugnant to. the provisions of the National Parks & Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, as amended. 2. An order that the decisions of the Respondents identified herein be set aside. 3. An order restraining the Respondents and each of them from acting upon the said decisions. 4. An order restraining the Respondents and each of them from taking any steps to implement or enforce the said revised Plan of Management. 5. An order directing the Respondents and each of them to prepare or cause to be prepared a new Plan of Management taking into account all proper considerations and taking into account and properly considering the submissions of all interested parties including the Applicants in respect of that new Plan of Management." During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that, apart from the questions of law raised in the proceedings, other issues arose between the parties as to the entitlement, if any, of the applicants to access to the areas the subject of their various mining interests or rights. The applicants then sought leave to amend their application by adding the following claims for relief: "5A. Alternatively to paragraphs 1 - 5 hereof, a declaration that pursuant to the. said revised Plan of Management the Applicants 3. are entitled to exercise all powers and rights conferred upon them by their mining tenements, and to have all such further rights and powers in respect of the said tenements vis-a-vis the Commonwealth, as are set forth in the Mining Act 1980 (N.T.) including the right to reasonable access to the said tenements on or through land formerly known as Kakadu National Park Stage II. 5B Alternatively to 5A hereof, a declaration that upon the true construction of the said revised Plan of Management, the Applicants are entitled to exercise all the powers and tights conferred upon them by the said mining tenements by reason of the Mining Act 1980 (N.T.) in respect of the land the subject of those tenements which is in or comprises part of the land formerly known as Kakadu National Park Stage II." The first and second respondents oppose the application for leave to amend. However, the Federal Court Act requires that, so far as possible, the Court shall completely and finally determine all matters in controversy between the parties (Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.22). The question of access is a matter of central significance so far as the applicants are concerned and, if not resolved in this action, it will, no doubt, be pursued in other proceedings. Subject to the imposition of appropriate terms, I propose to allow the amendment sought. I reserve to the respondents the right to argue, at a later date, that there 1s no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in paras.5A and 5B. On the question of terms, costs must be reserved for further argument and the first and second respondents should be 4. given an opportunity to prepare for this aspect of the case. I make the following orders: 1. Grant leave to the applicants to amend their application by adding new paras. 5A and 5B in the terms set out in these reasons. 2. Reserve costs. 3. Stand matter over to a date to be fixed. I certify that this and the preceding f 22. (3) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his edhe Mr. nee. Associate late Dated: 22 December 1986 Counsel and Solicitors R.A. Conti Q.C. with for Applicants: A.J. Sullivan instructed by Clayton Utz. Counsel and Solicitors D.M.J. Bennett 0.C. with for First and Second C.C. Simpson, T. Reilly Respondents: instructed by Australian Government Solicitor. Counsel and Solicitors B. Martin Q.C., Solicitor- for Third Respondent: General, with G. Nicholson instructed by Department of Law Dates of hearing: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 December 1986 Date Judgment Delivered: 22 December 1986