Alinta LGA Limited (Formerly The Australian Gas Light Company) v Mine Subsidence Board [2008] HCA 17

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN AND KIEFEL JJ

ALINTA LGA LIMITED (FORMERLY

THE AUSTRALIAN GAS LIGHT COMPANY)

& ANOR APPELLANTS

AND

MINE SUBSIDENCE BOARD RESPONDENT

Alinta LGA Limited (Formerly The Australian Gas Light Company) v

Mine Subsidence Board

[2008] HCA 17

24 April 2008

S520/2007

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Representation

J T Gleeson SC with J R Williams for the appellants (instructed by Freehills)

M J Leeming SC with S J Free for the respondent (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Alinta LGA Limited (Formerly The Australian Gas Light Company) v Mine Subsidence Board

Statutes – Interpretation – Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 (NSW) ("the Subsidence Act") – Appellants claimed compensation from statutory fund for cost of works to prevent damage to pipeline from subsidence – Pursuant to s 15(5)(b) "no claim shall be entertained or payment made" where improvement erected without approval unless certificate is issued – Respondent Board found pipeline erected without approval and refused to issue certificate or entertain claim – Section 12B(b) conferred right of appeal to Land and Environment Court against "the decision of the Board as to the amount of the payment from the Fund" – Whether refusal of Board to entertain claim in absence of jurisdictional facts appealable under s 12B(b) or subject only to judicial review in Supreme Court.

Courts and judicial system – Jurisdiction – Land and Environment Court – Appeals – Class 3 – Sections 16 and 19(fl) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (NSW) conferred jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals under s 12B of the Subsidence Act – Whether jurisdiction to hear and determine appellants' appeal against Board's decision – Relevance of breadth of powers under s 39(3) to conduct de novo rehearing.