Wambo Coal Pty Limited v Mine Subsidence Board [2006] NSWLEC 528

Reported Decision : (2006) 147 LGERA 457

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Wambo Coal Pty Limited v Mine Subsidence Board [2006] NSWLEC 528

APPLICANT: Wambo Coal Pty Limited PARTIES :

RESPONDENT: Mine Subsidence Board

FILE NUMBER(S) : 30584 of 2005

CORAM: Lloyd J

KEY ISSUES: Question of Law :- statutory interpretation - where meaning is ambiguous or obscure - underlying purpose or object - entitlement to compensation for expense incurred in preventing or mitigating reasonably anticipated subsidence damage

LEGISLATION CITED: Interpretation Act 1987 ss 33, 34 Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 (NSW) ss 10(3)(a), 12, 12A, 12B, 13A

CASES CITED: Kingston v Keprose (1987) 11 NSWLR; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355

DATES OF HEARING: 26/05/2006

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/24/2006

APPLICANT: M J Leeming SOLICITORS: Sparke Helmore Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: P J McEwen SC SOLICITORS: Trisley Kilmurray Lawyers

JUDGMENT: - 8 - IN THE LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Lloyd J

Thursday, 24 August 2006

LEC No. 30584 of 2005

WAMBO COAL PTY LIMITED v MINE SUBSIDENCE BOARD [2006] NSWLEC 528

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant, Wambo Coal Pty Limited, seeks payment from the respondent, Mine Subsidence Board, of the sum of money in respect of expenditure incurred in anticipation of subsidence damage to its surface drift conveyor as a result of the workings conducted on the land underneath. This is the separate determination of the question as to whether there is an entitlement under s 12A(1)(b) of the Mine Subsidence Compensation Act 1961 (NSW) ("the MSC Act") to claim compensation for expense incurred in preventing or mitigating reasonably anticipated damage prior to any subsidence occurring or, alternatively, whether it is necessary for damage resulting from a subsidence to have occurred prior to any claimable expenditure being incurred. There was no suggestion that this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine this question.