Land and Environment Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Martin v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWLEC 126 Hearing dates: 13 January 2011 Decision date: 13 January 2011 Jurisdiction: Class 8 Before: Sheahan J Decision: (1) The proceedings against the Third and Fourth Respondents are dismissed under rule 13.4(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. (2) The applicant is to pay the costs of the Third and fourth Respondents on a party-party basis from the filing of proceedings until 23 December 2010, but on an indemnity basis on and from 23 December 2010. (3) Costs of the First and Second Respondents are reserved. (4) Exhibit S1 is retained on the file. (5) The matter is stood over to 17 January 2011 before the Mining Commissioner. Catchwords: Practice and Procedure: application to strike out claim against respondents for lack of a cause of action within this court's jurisdiction - costs - indemnity costs Legislation Cited: Mining Act 1992 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Mr A G Martin (Applicant) State of New South Wales (First Respondent) Highlake Resources Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Mr Ross Savas (Third Respondent) Mrs Kaylene Savas (Fourth Respondent) Representation: Mr A G Martin in person (Applicant) Ms J Kavanagh, Solicitor (First Respondent) Mr T March, Solicitor (Second Respondent) Mr B Goldsmith, Solicitor (Third and Fourth Respondents) I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (First Respondent) HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (Second Respondent) Goldsmiths Lawyers (Third and Fourth Respondents) File Number(s): 80006 of 2010 EXTEMPORE Judgment 1These are class 8 proceedings commenced by summons on 13 December 2010. They concern exploration licence EL7613. They are brought against the State of New South Wales and against the company to whom that licence was granted. They are brought also against the third and fourth respondents or defendants, Mr and Mrs Ross Savas. I note that Commissioner Dixon gave a direction on 10 January that the name of the fourth respondent be altered to Kaylene Savas. 2The relief sought is a declaration that the grant of the licence is null and void and that the licence therefore is null and void, and also an order that the Minister cancel the licence under the Mining Act 1992 within 14 days. In paragraph 3 of the relief claimed section of the summons, the proceedings seek an order for costs, and in paragraph 4 the usual prayer for relief, " such other orders as this Court might deem fit ". 3There have been as yet no points of claim filed, but there is a large volume of material, some 90 pages, annexed to the summons, and Mr Martin, as a litigant in person, has also filed an affidavit, which was read in the proceedings on the motion this morning, and which concerns some of the circumstances of the joinder of the various parties. 4The Minister or the State of New South Wales and the company Highlake Resources Pty Ltd have appeared this morning. They express no opposition to the motion by the third and fourth respondents that the proceedings against them be struck out pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (2005), in that the proceedings disclose no cause of action relevant to class 8 of this Court's jurisdiction against those two defendants. 5Clearly Mr Martin has a genuine concern and some serious allegations to make regarding the conduct of Mr and Mrs Savas. As I understand it, although the word " theft " was mentioned in the course of argument, the cause of action asserted against Mr and Mrs Savas turns upon misuse and/or disclosure of confidential information, and perhaps the use of that information in the grant of the exploration licences by the first respondent to the second. 6None of the material before the Court discloses any cause of action, relevant to this Court's jurisdiction, against the third and fourth respondents. 7Mr Martin may have a forum where those allegations and those claims can be pursued, but I regret to inform him that it is not class 8 of the jurisdiction of the Land and Environment Court. 8The notice of motion to strike out the claim against those two respondents is upheld, and Mr Martin is ordered to pay their costs. [The parties addressed on the question of indemnity costs and email correspondence was tendered ( Exhibit S1 ). His Honour then made the following orders: (1) The proceedings against the Third and Fourth Respondents are dismissed under rule 13.4(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. (2) The applicant is to pay the costs of the Third and fourth Respondents on a party-party basis from the filing of proceedings until 23 December 2010, but on an indemnity basis on and from 23 December 2010. (3) Costs of the First and Second Respondents are reserved. (4) Exhibit S1 is retained on the file. (5) The matter is stood over to 17 January 2011 before the Mining Commissioner.] DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 27 July 2011