Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Apache Northwest Pty Ltd (ABN 58 009 140 854) v Agostini [2009] FCA 534
STATUTES – following a pipeline explosion second respondent exercised power to compel production by the applicants of information and documents for the purposes of the Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969 (WA) – second respondent responsible for the portion of the applicants' pipeline which was on State land – State responsible for onshore and offshore State Acts and Commonwealth responsible for the same pipeline over the Commonwealth waters – information obtained compulsorily subsequently released to a joint State and Commonwealth Inquiry into upstream regulation for the purposes of a report into events which included the explosion in respect of which the compulsory information was first provided – was the provision of the information compulsorily provided for the purposes of the 1969 State Act given for the same purposes when it was released to the joint Commonwealth and State Inquiry inquiring into matters partially beyond the geographic and legislative ambit of the 1969 State Act – approach to 'purpose' of the Act – consideration of context – whether a broad contextual approach to purpose results in the release being for the purposes of the 1969 State Act
Held: It could not be said that the provision of the s 63 information was for the purposes of the 1969 State Act.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B(1) Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) s 56, 59, 66, 70, 646, 646(e) Acts Amendment (Petroleum) Act 1990 (WA) Pt III Petroleum Pipelines Act 1969 (WA) ss 4, 4(4), 6, 11, 12, 21, 24, 25, 35, 37, 41, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67 Petroleum Submerged Lands Pipelines Regulations of 2007 regs 23, 44
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559 Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334 CBS Productions Pty Ltd v O'Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 601 CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission (2000) 199 CLR 135 Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2002) 213 CLR 543 Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570 Johns v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 178 CLR 408 Katsuno v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 40 Landsal Pty Ltd (in liq) v Rei Building Society (now The Co-operative Building Society of SA) (1993) 113 ALR 643 Mandurah Enterprises Pty Ltd -V- Western Australian Planning Commission [2008] WASCA 211 Marcel v Commissioner of Police (1992) Ch 225 Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214 Morris v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (1993) 3 WLR 1 Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457 Pileggi v Australian Sports Drug Agency (2004) 138 FCR 107 Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society (1999) 217 ALR 495 TVW Enterprises Ltd v. Duffy, M.J. & Ors [1985] FCA 109
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate