Land and Environment Court New South Wales

• Medium Neutral Citation: Martin v State of New South Wales and Central West Scientific Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 50
• Hearing dates: 28 February, 1 and 2 March 2011
• Decision date: 06 April 2011
• Jurisdiction: Class 8
• Before: Preston CJ

Decision

The Court orders:

1. The proceedings are dismissed.

2. Mr Martin is to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings.

3. Mr Martin is to pay the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the second respondent in and for the purpose of the proceedings.

• Catchwords: JUDICIAL REVIEW: - exploration licence - validity of grant of exploration licence by Minister's delegate - alleged supply to and use by the licence applicant of confidential information of the applicant in the proceedings - alleged failure to consider relevant matters - whether past inadequate exploration under different licence by an alleged "associated entity" of the licence applicant is a mandatory relevant consideration - validity of instrument and exercise of delegation to grant exploration licence - validity of application for exploration licence - alleged non-compliance with information requirements of approved form for licence applications - whether compliance with information requirements of the approved application form is a jurisdictional fact that must be satisfied to enliven the power to grant an exploration licence - whether the decision-maker's opinion that the licence applicant's application complied with the requirements of the approved form and the Mining Act miscarried in law - validity of execution by the licence applicant of the deed of grant of exploration licence - whether a validly executed deed is a precondition to the grant or taking effect of an exploration licence - whether the exercise of power to grant the exploration licence pleaded or proven to be in bad faith - whether alleged departure from a departmental policy on renewal of licences resulted in invalidity of the grant of the new licence - whether the lack of awareness of the applicant in the proceedings that an area was available for him to make a licence application resulted in invalidity of the grant of licence to the licence applicant for that area - whether the applicant in the proceedings established an equitable interest in the exploration licence - costs
• Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 7, 50, 127, 129(5),(6), 201A(1); Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Part 5; Interpretation Act 1987 ss 30(1)(b), 48(2); Legal Profession Act 2004 s 364(1),(2); Mining Act 1992 ss 13, 13A, 22, 27(a), 28, 114, 135, 159, 160(1), 161, 293(1), 363(1), 382; Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002
• Cases Cited: Barrick Australia Ltd v Williams [2009] NSWCA 275; (2009) 74 NSWLR 733; Buck v Bovone (1976) 135 CLR 110; Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403; Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 353; Foley v Padley (1984) 154 CLR 349; Martin v NSW Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources [2010] NSWLEC 131; Midcoast Lime Co Pty Ltd v Minister for Primary Industries [2008] NSWSC 331; Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SBAN [2002] FCAFC 431; SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 361; (2002) 194 ALR 749; Timbarra Protection Coalition v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55; Woolworths Limited v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd (2004) 61 NSWLR 707
• Category: Principal judgment
• Parties: Mr Anthony Gilbert Martin (Applicant); The State of New South Wales; (First Respondent); Central West Scientific Pty Ltd; (Second Respondent)
• Representation: Applicant in person; Ms C Spruce (First Respondent); Mr R Hetherington (Agent for the Second Respondent); Crown Solicitor's Office (First Respondent)
• File Number(s): 80004 of 2010

Judgment

A competitor's exploration licence is challenged

1 Mr Martin and his wife have an interest in the exploration for certain types of minerals in NSW and are, and have been, the holders of various exploration licences. One of the areas of mineralisation in which Mr and Mrs Martin have been interested is an area near Yambulla in the south east of NSW towards the Victorian boarder. The area is underlain by granitoid rocks of the Bega Batholith which is of Devonian age. This is a composite batholith of multiple phases and chemical variations of intrusives. Of interest to many prospectors, although not necessarily Mr Martin, is the intrusion related gold mineralisation.

2 The area in and around Yambulla has, since 10 June 1881, had a mining history, mainly focussed on gold. Alluvial, surface and underground goldmining has occurred in the past. Modern exploration of the Yambulla area commenced in 1966. Since then a variety of mining exploration companies have explored the area, under various exploration licences, prospecting not only for gold but also other minerals including silver and molybdenum. They have produced exploration reports, as required by the terms of their exploration licences, which provide information on the geology and the mineralisation of the area. The governmental Geological Survey of NSW, on occasions, has reviewed and reported on the published and unpublished records of the geology, mineralisation and mining history of the Yambulla Goldfields and other areas.

3 The most recent exploration work was undertaken by Lucknow Gold Ltd ("Lucknow") under Exploration Licence No 6499 ("EL 6499") and Central West Scientific Ltd ("CWS"), under Exploration Licence No 7547 ("EL 7547"). It is the grant of the latter licence, EL 7547, that Mr Martin challenges in these proceedings.

4 The motivation behind Mr Martin's challenge is that he has wished, and still wishes, to apply for the right to explore the area covered by the former EL 6499 granted to Lucknow and the current EL 7547 granted to CWS. Mr Martin said he was unaware when EL 6499 expired and he missed out on the opportunity to apply for an exploration licence over the area before CWS applied for, and then was granted, EL 7547. Mr Martin believes that if the Court were to set aside EL 7547, he would then have an opportunity to apply for an exploration licence over the area.

The grounds of challenge

5 Mr Martin has represented himself in these proceedings. He has drafted points of claim, the last version of which were amended by leave of the Court on 28 February 2011. As is often the case with pleadings of litigants in person, the precise grounds upon which Mr Martin challenges the exercise of power to grant EL 7547 are opaque. In opening his case at the final hearing, however, Mr Martin did articulate 11 grounds of challenge to the validity of EL 7547. Mr Martin accepted that the nature of the Court's jurisdiction under s 293(1) of the Mining Act 1992 ("the Mining Act") to review the exercise of power to grant EL 7547 was that of judicial review of the validity of EL 7547, as held by Rothman J in Midcoast Lime Co Pty Ltd v Minister for Primary Industries [2008] NSWSC 331 at [42]-[45].

6 I endeavoured to summarise in writing what I understood to be the grounds of challenge stated by Mr Martin in his opening and I provided my written summary to Mr Martin and the other parties. I set out in the appendix to this judgment my written summary. I invited Mr Martin to correct my written summary if he thought it to be inaccurate. Mr Martin did not seek to correct the summary or to point to any inaccuracies in it. He did develop and particularise each of the 11 grounds in submissions and by reference to the evidence tendered. However, this adumbration did not add new grounds of challenge.

7 I should also note that Mr Martin was reluctant to accept the written summary to be a substitute for his amended points of claim and said that he still relied on his amended points of claim. However, Mr Martin did not point to any statements in the points of claim which he said gave rise to a different ground of challenge to the validity of EL 7547.

8 Nevertheless, I should note that Mr Martin does claim, in his amended points of claim, that certain legislative amendments made by the NSW Parliament to the Mining Act on and since 7 April 2009 are unconstitutional and exceed the legislature's authority (see paras 29-32 of the amended points of claim). The relevance of this challenge to legislative amendments by Parliament, to the exercise of the Minister's power to grant EL 7547 was obscure. In any event, however, the Land and Environment Court of NSW, being a specialist statutory court, has no jurisdiction to review the constitutionality or legal validity of legislative amendments by Parliament to the Mining Act and that claim of Mr Martin can be dismissed on this basis alone.

9 I therefore propose to deal with each of Mr Martin's grounds of challenge on which he opened his case, as set out in the written summary I have provided to the parties. Before doing so, I will briefly summarise the key facts relating to the application for and grant of EL 7547.

Some facts of the application for and grant of the exploration licence

10 As I have noted, EL 7547 was the successor title to EL 6499. Mr Martin relies on some facts associated with the grant of and exploration pursuant to EL 6499 in his challenges to the validity of EL 7547. Accordingly, I will begin by briefly outlining the facts associated with the grant of EL 6499 before turning to the facts associated with the grant of EL 7547.

11 EL 6499 was granted on 3 January 2006 to Agricultural Equity Investments Pty Ltd ("AEI") for a term of 2 years, for Group 1 minerals and for the whole or parts of 36 graticular units of the licence area. A condition of the exploration licence required a minimum annual expenditure on exploration of $38,000 for the first two year period.

12 EL 6499 was renewed in relation to all 36 units of the licence area for a new term of one year from 3 January 2008, with an annual expenditure commitment for the second one year period of $66,000.

13 On 15 February 2008, EL 6499 was transferred from AEI to Lucknow Gold Ltd ("Lucknow").

14 On 26 November 2008, Lucknow applied for a further renewal, under special circumstances, for all 36 units of the licence area for an additional two year term from 2 January 2009. Lucknow submitted that there were special circumstances justifying renewal of all of the 36 units rather than a 50% reduction in the number of units. These special circumstances included Lucknow not being able to raise the required funds for completing the proposed work program, which included an aeromagnetic and radiometric survey of the licensed area.

15 On 18 March 2009, a departmental Minute Paper considered Lucknow's application for renewal of the whole of the 36 unit area. The Minute Paper noted that Lucknow had been granted a one year renewal of the exploration licence in order to carry out the proposed aeromagnetic and radiometric survey. However, Lucknow did not carry out the aeromagnetic survey or other effective exploration over the licensed area. The Minute Paper did not consider, as a sufficient extenuating circumstance, that Lucknow had been unable to raise the required funds from an IPO (initial public offering) which was withdrawn at the end of the last period. The Minute Paper concluded that the special circumstances renewal policy criteria had not been satisfied and recommended that Lucknow's renewal application be refused.

16 On 9 April 2009, Ms Chris Cottier of the Titles Branch of the Department wrote to Lucknow advising that "[t]he Department has considered your application [for renewal of Exploration Licence No 6499] and, as you failed to carry out the airborne survey which was a condition of the last renewal of the licence, it is proposed to refuse your application for renewal." The Department invited Lucknow to make any representations it wished to Ms Chris Cottier before the Minister made a final determination of the application for renewal.

17 On 13 May 2009, after receipt and consideration of the Department's letter, Lucknow withdrew its renewal application. EL 6499 thereupon expired. The exploration licence had stayed in force beyond the expiry date of 2 January 2009 whilst the application for renewal of licence had been pending but on withdrawal of the renewal of the application, on 13 May 2009, the licence thereupon expired.

18 Mr Martin relies on the non-renewal of EL 6499 to support two of his grounds of challenge to the grant of EL 7547: one that that Minister should have concluded that CWS would also be unable to carry out the required work program, just as Lucknow had been unable to do so, and the other that, just as the Minister had not been satisfied that special circumstances had been established for renewal for Lucknow for an area greater than 50% of the licensed area, the Minister should not have granted CWS's new exploration licence for the whole 36 units of the licensed area.

19 On 7 August 2009, CWS, by its agent Hetherington Exploration and Mining Title Services Pty Ltd ("Hetherington"), lodged a new application for an exploration licence over the same area (the whole or part of the 36 units) to which EL 6499 had applied. This new exploration licence was assigned the number 3759 ("ELA 3759"). The application comprised a number of documents. These are described in Hetherington's covering letter of 7 August 2009 as follows:

"In support of the Application for an Exploration Licence, please find enclosed the following:

1. Duly executed Form 3 - Application for an Exploration Licence,

2. Diagram showing the Exploration Licence Application area, marked 'Attachment A',

3. Particulars of the proposed program of work, marked 'Attachment B',

4. Particulars of financial resources, marked 'Attachment C',

5. Curriculum Vitae of Tully Richards, marked 'Attachment D',

6. Written authority to act as agent for Central West Scientific Pty Ltd marked 'Attachment E'."

20 I note that one of Mr Martin's grounds of challenge concerns the adequacy of this application. Mr Martin claims that CWS's application did not comply with the requirements of the Form 3 Application, in section 11, concerning particulars of available financial resources (Q 11(a)) and particulars of the proposed program of work (Q 11(b)). I will provide further factual details about CWS's application in these respects when I deal with this claim of Mr Martin.

21 On 15 September 2009, Simon Henderson of Eastern Region Titles in the Department provided a written Minute to the Exploration Titles Committee on ELA 3759. The Minute noted that CWS had applied for 36 units and that 36 units were available. The Minute stated that statutory requirements (for the grant of an Exploration Licence) had been complied with. It stated that "finance" and "tech advice" had been "tabbed"; proposed expenditure of $38,000 per annum complies with the Department's requirements of $38,000 per annum; and the ELA Expenditure Report was attached as "Tab D". The Minute recommended that an exploration licence be granted for a period 24 months for the available area, on relevant conditions which were specified.

22 On 28 September 2009, the Minutes of the Exploration Titles Committee meeting recorded, in relation to ELA 3759, that:

"The Committee recommends this application for 36 units (Group 1 minerals) be granted for 24 months subject to the company providing a satisfactory revised program that addressed the requirements of Form 3 Q 11(b)."

23 The resolution of the Exploration Titles Committee was conveyed to CWS.

24 On 2 February 2010, CWS, by its agent, Hetherington, submitted a revised program of work and expenditure for ELA 3759. The revised work program replaced the work program that had been previously submitted with ELA 3759 and was in satisfaction of the requirements in Q 11(b) of the Form 3 Application.

25 On 22 February 2010, Ms Chris Cottier requested Mr Colin Wood, Principal Geologist, Mineral Resources Division, Geological Survey of NSW, of the Department, to advise if the revised work program submitted by CWS in relation to ELA 3759 was satisfactory.

26 On 2 March 2010, Mr Colin Wood advised Ms Chris Cottier that he had reviewed the revised work program for ELA 3759 and assessed it as satisfactory.

27 On 8 March 2010, Ms Chris Cottier, for the Director-General of the Department, wrote to CWS, care of its agent, Hetherington, advising that:

"The Department has reached the stage where it intends to grant a title in satisfaction of the above exploration licence application subject to receipt of the following:

The security of $10,000.00 as outlined in the attached draft conditions. Security may be met in the manner indicated in the attached leaflet.

The area available is shown on the attached diagram ...

The signed document (including the conditions) and security must be returned to the contact person listed below, c/- Titles Branch within the next forty-two (42) days. Please note an extension of this period is not available."

28 The contact person stated was Ms Chris Cottier.

29 As the letter had stated, a draft exploration licence was attached. The exploration licence was in the form of a deed, identified the 36 units of the licence area, and set out the exploration licence conditions. The conclusion of the draft deed contained the names of the grantee, CWS, and the grantor, the Minister by his delegate, and space for the signatures of the grantee and grantor and their witnesses.

30 On 29 April 2010, Hetherington wrote to CWS advising of the Department's offer of an exploration licence for an unreduced area of 36 units for a term of 2 years with an annual expenditure commitment of $38,000. Hetherington expressed some advice as to how CWS should execute the draft deed, drawing attention to s 127 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("the Corporations Act"). This is a point seized on by Mr Martin in one of his grounds of challenge. Mr Martin claims that CWS did not execute the deed in accordance with s 127 of the Corporations Act.

31 Hetherington in its letter to CWS summarised the exploration licence conditions and concluded by requesting CWS to execute but not to date the draft deed and return it to Hetherington, together with the $10,000 security required so that Hetherington could lodge the document and security with the Department on time.

32 On 17 May 2010, CWS, by Mr Christopher Morgan-Hunn, paid by cheque the security deposit of $10,000 and a receipt no 247922 was issued by the Department. The draft exploration licence in the form of the deed was signed for CWS by Mr Tully Richards, Director, and witnessed by Mr Christopher Morgan-Hunn and returned to the Department.

33 On 19 May 2010, Ms Chris Cottier prepared a written Minute on the grant of an exploration licence to application no 3759 by CWS. The Minute noted that the Exploration Titles Committee had recommended the grant on 28 September 2009; that security had been lodged (receipt no 247922); that there were "Nil", "Defects that require the Minister's discretion"; that the Minister had made a determination under Part 5 (of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) on 28 September 2009; and that the application had been advertised on 15 October 2009 (as required by s 13A of the Mining Act).

34 Ms Cottier recommended:

"1.     In accordance with the provisions of Section 22(1)(a) of the Mining Act 1992, the Minister grant an exploration licence in satisfaction of this application, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the licence document.

2.      The licence document be signed."

35 On 20 May 2010, Mr Steve Hughes, Acting Team Leader, Eastern Region, Titles, of the Department, exercising a delegation from the Minister, approved the grant of an exploration licence to ELA 3759. The Minister's delegate signed the "Approved" section on the Minute and signed and dated, as 20 May 2010, the exploration licence, which was in the form of a deed.

36 Mr Martin challenges the authority of Mr Steve Hughes as a delegate of the Minister and claims that there was no valid instrument of delegation or proper exercise of the Minister's power pursuant to the delegation to grant the exploration licence.

37 The grant of the exploration licence was assigned the number 7547. EL 7547 has a term of 2 years and expires on 20 May 2012, unless it is renewed beforehand.

Alleged supply and use of confidential information

38 Mr Martin's first ground of challenge is that CWS was provided by the Department with, and used in its application for an exploration licence, first, confidential intellectual property of Mr Martin and, secondly, departmental information on the geology and mineralisation of the area not known to the general public or other potentially interested parties including Mr Martin.

39 This ground of challenge fails for two reasons: first, Mr Martin has not established on the evidence before the Court, the facts necessary to found his claims and, secondly, even if confidential information of Mr Martin or departmental information not known to the public were to have been provided to CWS (which is not established), Mr Martin has not shown how this leads to the invalidity of EL 7547.

40 As to the first reason, Mr Martin said in his oral submissions that confidential information obtained by Mr Martin from his geological consultants was submitted in support of applications for exploration licences by Mrs Martin on 14 May 2009 (ELA 3697) and by Mr Martin on 27 July 2009 (ELA 3747) in respect of different areas to the area covered by EL 7547. On being pressed to identify precisely the confidential information, Mr Martin referred to a works program emailed to Mr Steve Hughes at the Department on 7 July 2009 in support of Mrs Martin's exploration licence application ELA 3697. This works program was tendered in evidence. Mr Martin said that he repeated the confidential information in this works program in his exploration licence application ELA 3747 made on 27 July 2009. Mr Martin did not tender in evidence any other document alleged by Mr Martin to contain his confidential information and which was subsequently used by CWS.

41 Mr Martin has not produced any evidence, either in the documents tendered or evidence from a departmental officer or representatives of CWS or Hetherington, that the works program for ELA 3697 or any other information, including confidential information, which Mr Martin or his wife or any of their consultants provided to the Department at any time, has been provided to CWS, or that CWS used any such information in its application for an exploration licence. Mr Martin has also not pointed out any particular statement or information in CWS's exploration licence application and supporting documents which Mr Martin says uses his confidential information. On the face of CWS's exploration licence application and supporting documents, there is nothing to suggest use of Mr Martin's work program for ELA 3697.

42 Mr Martin also referred by name to various officers of the Department and said that they were persons with the necessary knowledge or skills who could have recognised the value of Mr Martin's confidential information for CWS's exploration licence application. Mr Martin then submits that the Court should draw the inference that those departmental officers must have passed on the confidential information to CWS. Again, there is no evidence in support of this allegation and I am unable to draw the inference suggested by Mr Martin.

43 Mr Martin then notes that CWS's application for an exploration licence ELA 3759, was lodged on 7 August 2009. Mr Martin draws attention to the fact that CWS's exploration licence application was lodged only 11 days after Mr Martin said he lodged his exploration licence application on 27 July 2009 for a different area, which included, Mr Martin says, his confidential information. Mr Martin says that this coincidence of timing supports the Court drawing an inference that CWS must have used his confidential information in its application. Again, there is no evidence to support this allegation and I am unable to draw any inference from this coincidence in timing of lodgement of CWS's and Mr Martin's exploration licence applications.

44 Mr Martin also claims that the Department provided to CWS departmental information on geology and mineralisation that was not available to the public or to Mr Martin. Again, Mr Martin has not pointed to any particular statement or information in CWS's exploration licence application or supporting documents which Mr Martin says uses non-public information provided by the Department to CWS. Mr Martin has not produced any evidence, in the form of documents or evidence from departmental officers or representatives of CWS or Hetherington, establishing that the Department provided such non-public information to CWS.

45 Mr Martin says that the Court should draw the inference that the Department must have provided such non-public information by reference to some geological maps used by Lucknow in its exploration reports provided to the Department as a requirement of its exploration licence 6499. Mr Martin points out that Mr Tully Richards was for a part of the term of the former EL 6499, a director of Lucknow and later a consultant to Lucknow, and now Mr Richards is the sole director of CWS. I am unable to draw the inference Mr Martin alleges. Lucknow is a different legal person to CWS. Lucknow's exploration licence and hence its exploration reports provided to the Department predated CWS's application for an exploration licence. There is no evidence that Lucknow's maps were derived from non-public information provided by the Department. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any information that Lucknow possessed has been provided to CWS. Accordingly, I am unable to draw an inference that CWS obtained non-public information from the Department via Lucknow.

46 For these reasons, the factual foundation for Mr Martin's claims concerning the supply to and use by CWS of confidential and non-public information have not been established.

47 In any event, however, Mr Martin has not shown how the supply to and use by CWS of confidential information and non-public information in making CWS's exploration licence application causes the Minister's exercise of power to grant EL 7547 to be outside power and invalid.

Alleged failure to consider relevant matters

48 Mr Martin's second ground of challenge is that the Minister failed to take into consideration, in deciding to grant EL 7547 to CWS, evidence that CWS and its "associated entities" had demonstrated since 2003 that CWS had no intention to explore in good faith the area covered by EL 7547.

49 CWS had not itself previously held an exploration licence over the area of EL 7547 and therefore CWS could not have demonstrated, by any past conduct, a failure to explore in good faith. Rather, Mr Martin relies on the failure of Lucknow to complete fully the exploration work program required under the previous EL 6499. Mr Martin seeks to make Lucknow's failure to carry out fully the exploration work program required by EL 6499 as evidence that CWS has no intention to explore in good faith the same area now covered by EL 7547, because he says CWS and Lucknow are associated companies. Mr Martin's claim fails for three reasons.

50 First, the evidence of the performance of Lucknow in carrying out the exploration work program required under EL 6499 was not a relevant matter that the Minister was bound to consider when determining CWS's application for an exploration licence. A matter is not a mandatory relevant consideration unless the statute expressly or impliedly, by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute, states the matter to be one that the decision-maker is bound to consider in exercising the power: Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Pty Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 39-40. The Mining Act neither expressly nor impliedly requires the Minister, when determining whether to grant an exploration licence under s 22, to consider the performance of an associated company which previously had held a licence over the same area. Such a consideration may be permissible (that is, it may not be a mandatory irrelevant matter) but it is not a mandatory relevant matter. Hence, even if the Minister did not consider the performance of Lucknow under a previous exploration licence, such a failure does not result in invalidity of EL 7547: see like conclusion and reasoning in Midcoast Lime Co Pty Ltd v Minister for Primary Industries [2008] NSWSC 331 at [61].

51 Secondly, Mr Martin has not established on the evidence before the Court that CWS has no intention to explore in good faith the area covered by EL 7547. CWS's exploration licence application and supporting documents asserted that CWS intended to explore the area. CWS has not previously explored the area so no adverse inference from its past conduct is able to be drawn. That leaves drawing an inference from the past conduct of Lucknow. I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that Lucknow's failure to complete fully the exploration work program required by the previous exploration licence EL 6499, in particular to complete the aeromagnetic survey, demonstrates that Lucknow had no intention to explore in good faith. That is not the only rational inference to be drawn. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that Lucknow had an intention to explore, but events transpired, including Lucknow's inability to raise the requisite funds through an IPO, that prevented Lucknow from carrying out its intention.

52 Thirdly, even if Lucknow had demonstrated no intention to explore in good faith (which I do not find), Mr Martin has not established that such a lack of intention should be attributed to CWS. Mr Martin asserts that such attribution is possible because Lucknow and CWS are "associated entities". I do not agree. The commonality between Lucknow and CWS is that Mr Tully Richards was for some of the term of EL 6499 a director, and for the balance of the term a consultant to Lucknow, and also that Mr Richards was a director of CWS at the time of application for and grant of EL 7547. However, that commonality of directorship does not cause the conduct and intention (or more correctly lack of intention) of Lucknow to be able to be attributed to CWS.

Alleged invalidity of instrument of delegation or exercise of delegation

53 Mr Martin's third ground of challenge is to the instrument of delegation of the power to grant an exploration licence and the exercise of the delegated power by Mr Hughes. Mr Martin challenges the instrument and exercise of delegation in four ways.

54 First, Mr Martin claims the instrument of delegation was cancelled or withdrawn by a subsequent instrument of delegation. Secondly, Mr Martin claims that the instrument of delegation authorised, relevantly, the "Team Leader, Eastern Region" and that Mr Steve Hughes was the "Acting" Team Leader, Eastern Region. Thirdly, Mr Martin claims that there is no evidence that Mr Steve Hughes is a permanent officer of the NSW Public Service and able to act in the position of Acting Team Leader, Eastern Region and thereby exercise the Minister's delegated power. Fourthly, Mr Martin claims that the exercise of the delegated power miscarried because there is no evidence of the state of mind of Mr Hughes who purportedly made the decision. I reject each of these challenges to the instrument and exercise of delegation.

55 First, the instrument of delegation is valid and effective. Section 363(1) of the Mining Act provides that the Minister may delegate any function of the Minister under the Mining Act (except the power of delegation) to any person.

56 By an instrument of delegation dated 8 December 2004, Mr Kerry Hickey, Minister for Mineral Resources, pursuant to s 363(1) of the Mining Act, delegated the functions (including powers, authorities and duties) specified in Schedule 2 of the instrument. One of the functions specified in column 1 of Schedule 2 was, under s 22(1)(a), that, after considering an application for an exploration licence, the Minister may grant an exploration licence. The instrument of delegation stated that the functions specified in column 1 of Schedule 2 are delegated to the holder of any office within a delegate category specified in column 3 opposite that function and the holder of any office that may in the future replace an office so specified. For the function under s 22(1)(a), the delegate category specified was "D". The instrument of delegation states that a delegate category referred to in the instrument consists of the offices in the Department of Primary Industries listed for that category in Schedule 1. For delegate category "D" the offices listed in Schedule 1 were 12 in number and included relevantly "Team Leader, Eastern Region".

57 Accordingly, by the instrument of delegation, the Minister delegated the function under s 22(1)(a) to grant an exploration licence to, amongst other persons, the Team Leader, Eastern Region.

58 The instrument of delegation of 8 December 2004 was amended by a later instrument of delegation, dated 28 September 2009 and gazetted on 6 November 2009, made by the then Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald.

59 The later instrument merely added another office, namely, "Deputy Director-General, Minerals & Energy" to the list of delegate categories for certain functions specified in Schedule 2 of the earlier instrument of delegation. The later instrument of delegation did not, contrary to Mr Martin's claim, repeal or withdraw the earlier instrument of delegation. Relevantly, therefore, the delegation of the Minister's function under s 22(1)(a) of the Mining Act to grant an exploration licence to, among others, the Team Leader, Eastern Region, remained in force after the later instrument of delegation was made.

60 Mr Martin claims that the legislative amendments to the Mining Act in 2009 caused the earlier instrument of delegation to cease to have effect and that a fresh delegation had to be issued under the version of the Mining Act current at the time of exercising the function under s 22(1)(a) to grant EL 7547. That is incorrect. Section 30(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1987 provides that:

"1.      The amendment or repeal of an Act or statutory rule does not:

          (b) affect the previous operation of the Act or statutory rule or anything duly suffered, done or commenced under the Act or statutory rule."

61 I note that a similar argument was rejected in Martin v NSW Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources [2010] NSWLEC 131 at [16].

62 Mr Martin also claims that the title of the Minister has changed. This is true. By the Public Sector Employment and Management (Ministerial Changes) Order 2009 made on 8 December 2009 under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002, any reference to the Minister for Mineral Resources is to be construed as a reference to the Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources. Such a change in the name of the Minister has no legal effect on the instrument of delegation made by the Minister for Mineral Resources on 8 December 2004.

63 Mr Martin finally claims that the instrument of delegation ceased to be effective once Mr Kerry Hickey ceased to be the Minister. I reject that submission. The delegation was made by the office of the Minister and did not lapse because the holder of the office changed: see Martin v NSW Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources [2010] NSWLEC 131 at [17].

64 Secondly, Mr Martin's claim that the delegation only authorised the "Team Leader, Eastern Region" and not Mr Hughes who was the "Acting Team Leader, Eastern Region" is answered by s 48(2) of the Interpretation Act 1987 which provides:

"If an Act or instrument confers or imposes a function on a particular officer or the holder of a particular office, the function may be exercised (or, in the case of a duty, shall be performed) by a person for the time being occupying or acting in the office concerned."

65 I note a similar argument was rejected in Martin v NSW Minister for Mineral and Forest Resources [2010] NSWLEC 131 at [18].

66 Thirdly, Mr Martin has not established that Mr Steve Hughes is not employed by the Department or does not hold the position of Acting Team Leader, Eastern Region. Mr Martin made an oral call for Mr Hughes' public service employment number and that was provided by the Department to Mr Martin at the hearing. Mr Martin did not otherwise make any attempt to prove that Mr Hughes was not employed by the Department or not a public servant or not appointed as Acting Team Leader, Eastern Region. Mr Martin, has, therefore, failed to discharge the onus on him to prove his factual claim that Mr Hughes was not the Acting Team Leader, Eastern Region.

67 Fourthly, Mr Martin has also failed to discharge the onus on him as the challenger of the decision to grant EL 7547 to show that Mr Hughes failed to turn his mind to matters relevant to the exercise of the power to grant EL 7547. Mr Martin reverses the onus when he says that there is no evidence of the state of mind of Mr Hughes. It is not for the Minister or his delegate to prove any particular state of mind; it is for Mr Martin to prove that he did not have a particular state of mind that he says is relevant to the exercise of the power to grant the exploration licence.

68 For these reasons, I reject Mr Martin's challenge based on the instrument and exercise of delegation.

Alleged invalidity of CWS's application for exploration licence

69 Mr Martin's fourth challenge is that CWS's application for an exploration licence was not an application in accordance with the Mining Act in that it did not contain all of the information required by the approved Form 3 for making an application.

70 Section 13 of the Mining Act provides, so far as it is relevant:

"(1)     Any person may apply for an exploration licence.

(4)      An application for an exploration licence must:

         (a)    specify the group or groups of minerals in respect of which the application is made, and

         (b)    be lodged with the Director-General, and

         (c)    be accompanied by the required information and the application fee prescribed by the regulations, and

         (d)    if the application is for an exploration (mineral owner) licence with respect to privately owned minerals that have more than one owner, be made by all the owners.

(5)     The required information is as follows:

         (a)     a description, prepared in the approved manner, of the proposed exploration area,

         (b)     particulars of the financial resources and relevant technical advice available to the applicant,

         (c)     particulars of the program of work proposed to be carried out by the applicant in the proposed exploration area,

         (d)     particulars of the estimated amount of money that the applicant proposes to spend on prospecting in that area,

         (e)     if the application is for an exploration (mineral owner) licence, evidence that the minerals to which the application relates are owned by the applicant,

         (f)     any other information that is prescribed by the regulations."

71 Section 382 of the Mining Act provides, so far as is relevant:

"(1)     An application or tender under this Act must be in or to the effect of the approved form.

(1A)    If an approved form requires the form to be completed in a specified manner, or requires specified information to be included in, attached to or furnished with the form, the form is not duly completed unless it is completed in that manner and unless it includes, or has attached to it or furnished with it, that information."

72 The instrument of delegation by the Minister dated 8 December 2004 delegated the function under s 382 of the Mining Act of approval of forms of application under the Mining Act to delegate category "A", which includes the Deputy Director-General, Mineral Resources.

73 On 8 July 2008, the Deputy Director-General, Mineral Resources approved Form 3 "Application for an Exploration Licence" version June 2008 as the approved form for making an application for an exploration licence under s 13 of the Mining Act.

74 Q 11 on the approved form required specified information to accompany the application. Of relevance to Mr Martin's challenge are Q 11(a), (b) and (c). These provide as follows:

"(a)     Particulars of available financial resources (verifiable evidence of these resources must be in the form of:

           For Companies - a recent audited set of financial statements or the financial section from the most recent company report/s.

           For individuals - a formal letter from an independent accountant, bank or other financial institution, or a statement from a financial institution, indicating a credit balance sufficient to meet the applicant's/s' expenditure requirement in NSW.

(b)     Particulars of proposed program of work (including rationale, objectives and exploration methods.

(c)     A statement providing an estimate of the amount of money to be spent on prospecting."

75 Next to each of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) was a column entitled 'Tick' with the symbol and a set of square brackets to enable the applicant to tick whether or not information requested in the paragraphs accompanied the application.

76 CWS's application for an exploration licence lodged on 7 August 2009 used the approved Form 3. Each of the questions in Q 11(a), (b) and (c) were ticked in the space provided. The application form was accompanied by:

• For the purposes of Q 11(a): particulars of financial resources, marked attachment "C";
• For the purposes of Q 11(b) and (c): particulars of the proposed program of work, marked attachment "B".

77 Attachment "C", was a letter from Morse Accounting Services, Chartered Accountants, dated 6 August 2009 addressed to the Manager, Mineral Titles. The letter stated:

"We are the accountants for Christopher John Morgan-Hunn.

We advise that in our opinion that should any Licence be issued in satisfaction of the attached Application Central West Scientific Pty Ltd would have no difficulty in funding an anticipated expenditure of $38,000 per annum with Christopher Morgan-Hunn acting as guarantor."

78 Attachment "B" was a document entitled "Details of Proposed Program of Work and Expenditure". This document was found by the Exploration Titles Committee at its meeting on 28 September 2009 to be wanting and the Committee required CWS to provide "a satisfactory revised program that addressed the requirements of Form 3 Q 11(b)." As a consequence, CWS, by its agent, Hetherington, provided a revised work program on 2 February 2010. The revised document was also entitled "Details of Proposed Program of Work and Expenditure". As the title suggested, the document set out the proposed program of work for the initial two year term of the licence and concluded with a table of the amount of money proposed to be spent on exploration in each of the two years. In substance, the document addressed the rationale, objectives and exploration methods proposed.

79 Except for the original work program, which was replaced by the revised work program, CWS's application for an exploration licence and the accompanying particulars were found by the Departmental officers and Exploration Titles Committee to comply with the statutory requirements for an exploration licence application. The Minute of 15 September 2009 to the Exploration Titles Committee, by Mr Simon Henderson, stated that CWS's exploration licence application complied with the statutory requirements, tabbed the finance and technical advice for the Exploration Titles Committee's consideration, and noted that the proposed expenditure of $38,000 per annum complied with the Department's requirement of $38,000 per annum and tabbed the ELA expenditure report for the Committee's consideration. The Exploration Titles Committee, at its meeting on 28 September 2009, found only one aspect of CWS's exploration licence to be wanting, the works program for the purposes of Q 11(b), but otherwise recommended the application be granted. CWS's revised works program submitted on 2 February 2010 was reviewed by Mr Colin Wood and assessed as satisfactory. The recommendation was made to the Titles Branch of the Department to proceed with making an offer to CWS. On 8 March 2010, Ms Chris Cottier for the Director-General made the offer of an exploration licence to CWS, saying that "[t]he Department has reached the stage where it intends to grant a title on satisfaction of the above exploration licence application subject to the receipt of ... [t]he security of $10,000 as outlined in the draft conditions."

80 After CWS lodged the security deposit of $10,000 and returned the signed draft deed of exploration licence, on 19 May 2010, Ms Chris Cottier recommended the grant of an exploration licence in satisfaction of CWS's application, subject to the terms and the conditions specified in the licence document. Ms Cottier noted in the memorandum that "Defects that required the Minister's discretion: Nil". This was a reference to the discretion that the Minister has under s 135 of the Mining Act to waive compliance with certain requirements of the Mining Act.

81 On 20 May 2010, the Minister, by his delegate Mr Steve Hughes, approved the grant of an exploration licence in satisfaction of CWS's exploration licence application.

82 Hence, the Department and the Minister, by his delegate, were satisfied that, by the time of the grant of the exploration licence, CWS's exploration licence application was in the approved Form 3 and was accompanied by the information specified by Form 3 Q 11 and hence the application was duly completed.

83 Mr Martin submits, however, that the Department and the Minister erred in fact in so concluding that CWS's application was duly completed and complied with the requirements of Form 3 Q 11. Mr Martin submits that Form 3 Q 11(a) requires that the particulars of available financial resources be in different forms depending upon whether the applicant is a company or individual. The applicant in this case, CWS, was a company and therefore Mr Martin submitted that Q 11(a) required CWS to provide particulars of available financial resources in the form of "a recent audited set of financial statements or the financial section from the most recent company report/s". CWS did not provide either document. Instead, CWS provided a formal letter from an independent accountant, Morse Accounting Services, advising that CWS "would have no difficulty in funding an anticipated expenditure of $38,000 per annum with Christopher Morgan-Hunn acting as guarantor." Mr Martin further notes that Morse Accounting Services stated that they were the accountants of Mr Morgan-Hunn not CWS. In any event, Mr Martin submits that CWS did not provide particulars of available financial resources in the form required for companies.

84 Mr Martin submits that Form 3 Q 11(b) requires particulars of the program of work to include "rationale, objectives and exploration methods". Mr Martin submits that Form 3 Q 11(b), like Q 11(a), requires the particulars of the proposed program of work to be in a form that separately provides particulars of the rationale, objectives and exploration methods. Mr Martin submits that the revised program of work submitted by CWS on 2 February 2010 did not, as a matter of form, include headings and discrete sections on the rationale, objectives and exploration methods. Mr Martin submits, therefore, that it fails to comply with the requirements of Q 11(b).

85 For Mr Martin to succeed in this challenge, the particular factual requirements he identifies in Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) must be jurisdictional facts: the existence of the particular facts and documents Mr Martin says are required by Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) must enliven the power of the Minister under s 22 of the Mining Act to grant an exploration licence. If the particular facts and documents required by Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) are jurisdictional facts, the Court can determine for itself if they exist as an objective fact. If the particular facts and documents required by Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) are not jurisdictional facts, however, the Court's review is more restricted, being restricted to whether the decision-maker formed an opinion and was satisfied that the particular facts or documents provided by CWS in support of its exploration licence application complied with the requirements of Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) and that such an opinion or satisfaction did not miscarry in law.

86 Secondly, if Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) do raise jurisdictional facts, Mr Martin needs to establish that, as an objective fact, the particular facts and documents provided by CWS do not satisfy the requirements of Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b).

87 Thirdly, if non-compliance with the requirements of Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) is established, Mr Martin must show that such non-compliance was not waived by s 135(1) of the Mining Act.

88 The determination of whether a condition precedent to a statutory power is a jurisdictional fact involves a question of statutory interpretation: Timbarra Protection Coalition v Ross Mining NL (1999) 46 NSWLR 55 at [37]; Woolworths Limited v Pallas Newco Pty Ltd (2004) 61 NSWLR 707 at [6]. The Court construes the statutory formulation which contains a factual reference "so as to determine the meaning of the words chosen by parliament, having regard to the context of that statutory formulation and the purpose or object underlying the legislation": Timbarra at [39].

89 Two tests are critical in that process of statutory interpretation: a test of objectivity (did the legislature intend that the fact referred to must exist in fact?) and a test of essentiality (did the legislature intend that the absence or presence of the fact would invalidate action under the statute?): Timbarra at [37], [38].

90 The process of determining whether a formulation which contains a factual reference meets the test of objectivity and essentiality requires consideration of a multiplicity of factors. There will inevitably be indicators for and against a conclusion of jurisdictional fact: see the analysis in Timbarra at [37]-[94] and Woolworths Limited v Pallas Newco at [30]-[86].

91 If, on a proper construction of the statute, the formulation is characterised as a jurisdictional fact, the Court must determine for itself whether the fact in truth exists. The Court does this on the basis of the evidence before the Court and not on the evidence of the decision-maker: Timbarra at [23]-[24], [36], [121]. The burden of establishing the facts which show an absence of jurisdiction or power always rests on the person challenging the administrative action.

92 As a matter of statutory interpretation of the Mining Act and the approved Form 3, I conclude that the requirements of form that Mr Martin identifies in Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) are not jurisdictional facts that must exist in order to enliven the power of the Minister under s 22 of the Mining Act to grant an exploration licence. My reasons are fourfold.

93 First, s 382(1) of the Mining Act requires an application under the Act (which includes an application for an exploration licence) to be "in or to the effect of the approved form." The addition by the legislature of the words "to the effect of" is an indication that the legislature did not intend that the application, in order to be valid, must only be "in" the approved form; it is sufficient if it is "to the effect of" the approved form. Hence, if the approved form requires specified information to accompany the application, it will be sufficient if the information accompanying the application is to the effect of the specified information.

94 Secondly, s 382(1A) provides that: "If an approved form requires the form to be completed in a specified manner, or requires specified information to be included in, attached to or furnished with the form, the form is not duly completed unless it is completed in that manner and unless it includes, or has attached to it or furnished with it, that information." Hence, the consequence specified by the legislature for non-compliance with the requirements of an approved form as to the specified manner or the inclusion in, attachment to or furnishing with the form of specified information is that a form is not "duly completed". The legislature did not specify that a form that is not duly completed does not constitute an application for the purposes of the Act at all or that a decision-maker lacks power to determine such an application that is not duly completed. That is to say, that the legislature, having turned its mind in effect to the test of essentiality, did not specify that compliance with the requirements of an approved form as to the manner of completion or the information to be included in, attached to or furnished with the form is essential to enliven the power to grant or renew an authority to an application or, conversely, that non-compliance should invalidate the grant or renewal of an authority to such an application.

95 Thirdly, s 135 of the Mining Act is an indicator that the legislature did not intend that non-compliance with a requirement of an approved form that specified information be included in, attached to or furnished with the form precludes the decision-maker granting or renewing an authority to an application. Section 135 provides:

"(1)     The decision-maker may grant or renew an authority even though the applicant has failed to comply with a requirement of this Act or the regulations:

           (a) as to the time within which anything is required to be done, or

           (b) as to the details to be contained in any notice served, lodged or caused to be published by the applicant, or

           (c) as to the information to accompany any application, or

           (d) as to the furnishing of declarations and other information by the applicant.

(2)     This section does not authorise the decision-maker to grant or renew an authority in the case of an applicant who has failed to comply with such a requirement unless the decision-maker is satisfied that the failure is unlikely:

          (a)  to adversely affect any person's rights under this Act or the regulations, or

          (b)  to result in any person being deprived of information necessary for the effective exercise of those rights."

96 Section 135, therefore, expressly permits the decision-maker to grant or renew an authority even though the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act as to, amongst other things, the information to accompany any application. The existence of a discretion to waive non-compliance is inconsistent with a legislative intention that non-compliance does not enliven the power to grant or renew an authority or should invalidate action under the statute to grant or renew an authority.

97 Fourthly, s 13(4) and (5) of the Mining Act specify the required information that must accompany an application for an exploration licence. Section 13(4)(c) provides that an application for an exploration licence must be accompanied by the "required information". Section 13(5) specifies what is "the required information". Of relevance to Mr Martin's challenge are (b) and (c) which provide:

"(b) particulars of the financial resources and relevant technical advice available to the applicant,

(c) particulars of the program of work proposed to be carried out by the applicant in the proposed exploration area."

98 These categories of required information in s 13(5)(b) and (c) are expressed at a greater level of generality than the particular requirements in Form 3 Q 11(a) and (b) on the same topics. In particular, s 13(5)(b) and (c) do not specify that particulars of the financial resources available to the applicant must be in any specified form, depending upon whether the applicant is a company or an individual, or that particulars of the applicant's program of work must specify specifically and separately the rationale, objectives and exploration methods. The fact that the legislature expressly specified the required information in s 13(4) and (5) in the general terms that it did, and not in the particular terms of the approved Form 3, is another indication that the legislature did not intend non-compliance by an application for an exploration licence with the requirements of the approved form, but compliance with the required information in s 13(4) and (5) of the Mining Act, should invalidate any grant of an exploration licence under s 22 of the Mining Act to such an application.

99 If the factual requirements in Form 3 Q 11 (a) and (b) are not jurisdictional facts, then the Court's review is of the decision-maker's opinion or satisfaction that the information accompanying CWS's application for an exploration licence was in or to the effect of the approved form (as required by s 382(1)) and was duly completed by being completed in the manner specified by Form 3 and included, attached or furnished the information specified by Form 3 Q 11 (a) and (b).

100 As I have noted, the Departmental officers and the Exploration Titles Committee expressly turned their minds to the compliance of CWS's application for an exploration licence with the requirements of the Act and Form 3 Q 11. After submission of the revised work program that addressed the requirements of Form 3 Q 11 (b), the Departmental officers formed the opinion that CWS's application for an exploration licence complied with statutory requirements and that there were no defects that required the Minister's discretion under s 135 of the Mining Act. The Minister approved the recommendation to grant the exploration licence and implicitly adopted the opinion as to the compliance of the application with the statutory requirements.

101 Mr Martin bears the onus of proving that the opinion that CWS's application complied with the statutory requirements miscarried in law, such as in one of the ways summarised by Gibbs J in Buck v Bovone (1976) 135 CLR 110 at 118-119: see also Barrick Australia Ltd v Williams [2009] NSWCA 275; (2009) 74 NSWLR 733 at [36]. The factual correctness of the opinion that CWS's application complied with the requirements of the approved Form 3 and of the Mining Act is not reviewable. The reviewing court cannot substitute the opinion it would have formed for the opinion of the administrative decision-maker: Foley v Padley (1984) 154 CLR 349 at 352-353, 370, 375.

102 I do not consider that Mr Martin has discharged that onus. Mr Martin has not demonstrated any reviewable error of law; he merely points to the factual correctness of the opinion. Mr Martin says that as a matter of fact, CWS did not, first, provide particulars of financial resources available to CWS in the form required by Q 11 (a) and therefore the opinion of compliance with Q 11 (a) could not be properly formed and, secondly, provide a proposed program of work structured in the form of separately considering the rationale, objectives and exploration methods and therefore the opinion of compliance with Q 11 (b) could not be properly formed. However, such a review of factual correctness is not permitted for non-jurisdictional facts.

103 Furthermore, Mr Martin's challenge in this regard depends on a construction of Form 3 Q 11 (a) and (b) that is not correct. For Q 11 (a), the primary requirement is to provide particulars of financial resources available to the applicant to carry out the proposed exploration work program. The subsidiary requirement is the form in which those particulars are to be provided. The primary requirement is one of substance; the subsidiary requirement is one of form. Non-compliance with the subsidiary requirement of form does not necessarily cause non-compliance with the primary requirement of substance. This construction of Q 11 (a) is supported by the "instructions for completing Form 3" which were approved when the Minister, by his delegate the Deputy Director-General, Minerals, approved Form 3 in accordance with s 382(1) of the Mining Act. The instructions for completing Q 11(a) of Form 3 state:

"Q 11. Information required to be supplied at the time of lodgement.

(a)

The applicant/s provide tangible evidence of their financial capacity to meet all exploration activity commitments in NSW. This evidence must comprise:

1.     A list of all existing exploration licences or applications in NSW, together with details of the financial commitment made in each application, and

2.     Evidence of the financial capacity to meet the total exploration commitment in NSW. This evidence can be in the form of:

For Companies - a recent audited set of financial statements or the financial section from the most recent company report/s

For individuals - a formal letter from an independent accountant, bank or other financial institution, or a statement from a financial institution, indicating a credit balance sufficient to meet the applicant's/s' expenditure requirement in NSW."

104 It will be noted that the substantive requirement is to provide "tangible evidence of their financial capacity to meet all exploration activity commitments in NSW" and this evidence must comprise "evidence of the financial capacity to meet the total exploration commitment in NSW". The instructions distinguish this substantive requirement from the form of the evidence to meet the substantive requirements. Hence, the instructions state this evidence "can be" in the form specified for companies and for individuals, not that it "must be" in that form. This indicates that the form requirement is subsidiary to the primary requirement of substance.

105 CWS did provide particulars of financial resources available to it to undertake exploration activity commitments under the exploration licence if it were to be granted. The form in which CWS provided that evidence was a formal letter from an independent accountant, Morse Accounting Services, indicating that CWS had sufficient financial resources to meet its expenditure requirements in NSW with Mr Morgan-Hunn acting as guarantor. Morse Accounting Services were Mr Morgan-Hunn's accountants. Hence, the letter is verifiable evidence of the financial resources available to CWS. There was, therefore, an evidentiary foundation for the Minister (by his delegate) to form the opinion that CWS's exploration licence application complied with the requirements of Q 11 (a).

106 The provision of the formal letter of the independent accountant is also evidence satisfying the requirements in s 13(4)(c) and s 13(5)(b) of particulars of the financial resources available to the applicant. There is no requirement of these statutory provisions that the evidence be in any particular form.

107 Mr Martin's construction of the requirement in Form 3 Q 11 (b) is also not correct. There is no requirement of form, only one of substance. The proposed program of work is required to include information on the rationale, objectives and exploration methods, but there is no requirement of form that there be separate headings or sections for each of the rationale, objectives and exploration methods.

108 Mr Martin has not shown that CWS's revised work program does not, as a matter of substance, contain information on the rationale, objectives and exploration methods.

109 For these reasons, Mr Martin has not shown that the opinion by the Minister, through his delegate, that CWS's exploration licence application complied with the requirements of the approved Form 3 Q 11 and of the Act miscarried in law.

110 In light of the conclusion that Mr Martin has failed to prove that CWS's application does not comply with the requirements of the approved Form 3 and of the Act, it is not necessary to formally determine the question of whether, if there were to have been any non-compliance, it was waived by the Minister under s 135 of the Mining Act. I note, however, that s 135 would seem to require that the Minister, first, be aware that an applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act or Regulations including as to the information to accompany an application, and, secondly, to be satisfied that the failure is unlikely to have the consequences specified in s 135(2) of adversely affecting any person's rights under the Act or Regulations or to result in any person becoming deprived of information necessary for the effective exercise of those rights. In this case, the Minister was advised that there were no defects that required the Minister's discretion and hence he was not aware of any non-compliance of the application with the Act or the Regulations and did not have any information put before him to consider and be satisfied about the consequences specified in s 135(2).

Alleged invalidity of execution of exploration licence

111 Mr Martin's fifth challenge concerns the execution of the deed that is the exploration licence by CWS. CWS executed the deed solely by Mr Tully Richards, who is the director of CWS, signing it, with his signature being witnessed by Mr Morgan-Hunn. Mr Martin claims that this execution does not comply with s 127 of the Corporations Act. Mr Martin claims that because the deed has not been duly executed by CWS, the exploration licence is invalid. I reject this challenge for three reasons.

112 First, the grant of an exploration licence is an exercise of the statutory power under s 22 of the Mining Act and is not contractual. The execution of the deed by the grantee of the exploration licence is not a necessary condition for the grant of the exploration licence to be effective: see likewise in Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 353 at [84]-[86] where the Court of Appeal noted that it is the statutory provisions which effect the relevant transfer of an authority under the Mining Act and that the holder of the authority has statutory rather than contractual rights.

113 It is true that the Minister has approved a deed as the approved form for an exploration licence under s 28 of the Mining Act. Section 28 provides:

"An exploration licence is to be in the approved form and is to include the following particulars:

(a)      a description of the land over which it is granted,

(b)      a list of the group or groups of minerals in respect of which it is granted,

(c)      the conditions to which it is subject,

(d)      the period for which it is to have effect."

114 On 29 September 1992, the then Minister for Natural Resources, Mr Causley, approved under s 28 that any exploration licences granted under the provisions of the Mining Act 1992 be in the attached form. The attached form was a deed which included the particulars required by s 28. The exploration licence granted to CWS was in the form approved by the Minister under s 28.

115 However, the execution of the exploration licence in the approved form of a deed, by the person to whom the licence is granted, is not a condition precedent to the Minister's exercise of power under s 22 to grant an exploration licence or to the exploration licence taking effect. Section 27(a) of the Mining Act provides that an exploration licence takes effect on the date on which it is granted or on such later date, or on the occurrence of such later date, as the decision-maker may determine.

116 Accordingly, the grant of EL 7547 was made and took effect irrespective of whether CWS executed the deed or not. Any defect in execution of the deed by CWS could have no bearing on the grant or the taking effect of EL 7547. EL 7547 remains valid regardless of any execution of the deed by CWS.

117 Secondly, Mr Martin has not demonstrated that the deed was not validly executed by CWS. Section 127 of the Corporations Act provides for ways in which a company may execute documents, including deeds. Subsection (1) provides ways in which a company may execute a document without using a company seal while subsection (2) provides ways in which a company may execute a document using a common seal. Subsection (3) provides that a company may execute a document as a deed if the document is express to be executed as a deed and is executed in accordance with subsection (1) or (2).

118 The benefit of a company executing a document in one of the ways specified in s 127(1) or (2) is that people will be able to rely on the assumptions in s 129(5) or (6) respectively for dealings in relation to the company.

119 However, s 127 does not require that a company execute a document in one of the ways specified in s 127(1) or (2). Indeed, s 127(4) makes this clear, providing that s 127 "does not limit the ways in which a company may execute a document (including a deed)."

120 Accordingly, the fact that a company executes a document (including a deed) in a way other than in accordance with s 127(1) or (2) does not, by that fact alone, cause the execution of the document to be ineffective in law.

121 Thirdly, in this case, Mr Martin has not established that CWS's execution of the deed is not in accordance with s 127(1). CWS is a proprietary not a public company. A proprietary company can have a sole director (s 201A(1) of the Corporations Act). CWS has a sole director, Mr Tully Richards. A company is not required to have a common seal (s 7 of the Corporations Act). Hence, CWS was able to execute the exploration licence, which was expressed to be a deed, by having it signed by Mr Tully Richards, who is the sole director of CWS. Mr Martin has not shown that Mr Richards is not also the sole secretary of the company.

122 Hence, Mr Martin has not shown that the execution by CWS of the deed by having the sole director, Mr Richards, sign the deed is not in accordance with s 127(1).

Alleged breach of good faith

123 Mr Martin's sixth ground of challenge is that there is a fundamental principle of the Mining Act of good faith and that the grant of EL 7547 was in breach of this principle. I reject this challenge.

124 First, whilst it might be true to say that any function conferred or imposed on the decision-maker under the Mining Act is required not to be exercised in bad faith, there is no overarching, fundamental principle of good faith in the Mining Act as claimed by Mr Martin.

125 Secondly, Mr Martin has not particularised in his pleadings an allegation of bad faith. An allegation of bad faith is a serious matter involving personal fault of the part of the decision-maker. Such an allegation is not to be made lightly and must be clearly alleged and proved: SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 361 at [43]; (2002) 194 ALR 749. The relevant inquiry is directed to the actual state of mind of the decision-maker. There is no such thing as deemed or constructive bad faith. It is the ultimate decision which must be shown to have been taken in bad faith: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SBAN [2002] FCAFC 431 at [8]. Mr Martin has not produced any evidence proving bad faith on the part of the Minister's delegate in granting EL 7547 in satisfaction of CWS's application. Mr Martin has failed to discharge the onus that rests on him to prove bad faith.

Alleged circumvention by CWS's application of the policy of renewal only with a 50% reduction in area

126 Mr Martin's seventh ground of challenge is that the grant of a new exploration licence to CWS for the whole of the 36 units of the licence area circumvented a departmental policy in relation to the renewal of exploration licences.

127 Mr Martin relies on a policy published by the department, including on its website, on renewal of exploration licences. There is no evidence of the status of the departmental policy, although on its face it states it is effective from 1 November 2004. I will assume that it was current at the time of CWS's application for an exploration licence and of the Minister (by his delegate) determining CWS's application. There is no evidence as to who in the department made the policy or under what authority the policy was made. The policy does not appear to have any legislative status, that is to say, it does not appear to have been made pursuant to any provision of the Mining Act or the Regulations.

128 The policy is entitled, "Policy on renewal of exploration licence". The policy opens with the statement:

"The Department has revised its policy in relation to renewal of exploration licences in order to assist exploration companies in their tenement management. There are no substantive changes to the previous policy."

129 The policy then continues:

"Exploration licences are usually granted for a period of two years, after which time they can be renewed for a further term (usually two years), with the opportunity for subsequent renewals. Normally, exploration licences are required to be reduced by 50% on each renewal (Section 114(6) of the Mining Act 1992). This is to ensure that exploration ground is 'turned over' and made available for other explorers to apply their own concepts, skills or technologies to such areas."

130 The policy then turns to consider the renewal of exploration licences and the criteria that should be satisfied.

131 Next, the policy deals with "special circumstances". The policy provides in this section:

"Section 114(6) of the Mining Act provides that an exploration licence may be renewed for more than 50% of its area if 'special circumstances' exist.

The criteria for establishing that special circumstances exist are:

1.     The conditions of the licence have been satisfactorily complied with (as outlined above).

2.     The full area of the licence has been explored effectively.

3.     The proposed program satisfactorily covers the full area to be renewed.

If any of these criteria are not met, extenuating factors may be taken into account but only if the Department is satisfied that this is in the best interests of development of the State's mineral resources. The quality of the previous performance on the licence and the quality of the proposed program carry particular weight in determining extenuating factors for 'special circumstance' renewals ... ".

132 Finally the policy refers to 'new applications'. In this section, the policy states:

"The Department will not allow a licence holder to circumvent the renewal policy by applying for a new licence to cover a licence, or areas of a licence, where renewal is not justified. Any such application by the previous holder (or by substantially the same interests as the previous holder) will normally be refused."

133 Mr Martin submits that CWS answers the description of being "substantially the same interest as the previous holder" of an exploration licence, namely Lucknow who held EL 6499 in respect of the same 36 unit area for which CWS applied for a new exploration licence. Mr Martin notes the Department had advised Lucknow that renewal of EL 6499 was not justified and in response Lucknow withdrew its renewal application and EL 6499 expired. Hence, Mr Martin submits, the policy applied and the application by CWS for a new exploration licence over the area of the former EL 6499 should have been refused. The grant of EL 7547, Mr Martin submits, was contrary to the policy and therefore invalid.

134 This is the only way that Mr Martin relies on the departmental policy. Mr Martin does not, for example, rely on grounds relating to legitimate expectation or procedural fairness in relation to adherence or departure from the departmental policy or failure to consider relevant matters in or relating to the policy or manifest unreasonableness of the decision to grant EL 7547 having regard to the policy. In referring to these potential grounds of review I am not saying they would have been relevant or that they would have had any prospects of success, but rather am noting for the record the confined way in which Mr Martin relied on the departmental policy.

135 I reject Mr Martin's ground of challenge to the validity of EL 7547 on the basis of departure from the departmental policy for four reasons.

136 First, the departmental policy on the renewal of exploration licences has no legal status under the Mining Act and does not fetter or regulate the exercise of the power under s 22 of the Mining Act to grant an exploration licence. The statutory constraints on the exercise of the power under s 22 to grant an exploration licence are those expressly stated in s 22 and Part 3 of the Mining Act or implied by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of s 22, Part 3 and the Mining Act generally. These constraints do not include the departmental policy on renewal of exploration licences as such or the matters in the policy statement in the section on new applications relied upon by Mr Martin. Accordingly, there was no legal requirement for the Minister to consider and to follow the departmental policy on renewal of exploration licences when exercising the power of s 22 to grant a new exploration licence. Hence, any departure from the policy (if such departure has in fact occurred) cannot result in invalidity of EL 7547.

137 Secondly, the departmental policy is stated to apply to the renewal of an existing exploration licence, a different exercise of power under s 114 of the Mining Act, rather than to the grant of a new exploration licence under s 22 of the Mining Act. It is true that in the departmental policy on renewal of exploration licences, there is a brief section on new applications, but this does not make it a policy adopted by the department in relation to the grant of a new exploration licence under s 22.

138 Thirdly, the policy statement relied upon by Mr Martin in the last section of the departmental policy says that an application for a new licence by the previous holder (or by substantially the same interest as the previous holder) will "normally" be refused, not "invariably" or "always" be refused. Hence, a grant of a new exploration licence on one occasion is not necessarily in breach of the policy.

139 Fourthly, Mr Martin has not established that the policy actually applies to CWS and to CWS's application for a new exploration licence. CWS is not "the previous holder" of an exploration licence over the area, that was Lucknow. Mr Martin has not established that CWS falls within the phrase in the policy statement of "substantially the same interest as the previous holder". The phrase is not explained in the policy statement. The only evidence before the Court is that for part of the term of the previous exploration licence EL 6499, Mr Tully Richards was a director of Lucknow (up to 3 December 2008) and for the balance of the term (EL 6499 expired on 13 May 2009), Mr Richards was a consultant to Lucknow and that Mr Richards is the sole director of CWS. However, this commonality of directorship by Mr Richards does not make CWS "substantially the same interest" as Lucknow. Mr Martin has not adduced evidence of any common shareholding between Lucknow and CWS or that either is a related body corporate in the sense that one is a holding company of the other, a subsidiary of the other or a subsidiary of a holding company of the other (see s 50 of the Corporations Act). Mr Martin has adduced no other evidence that CWS is "substantially the same interest" as Lucknow.

Alleged denial of opportunity to apply for EL 7547

140 Mr Martin's eighth ground of challenge is that he was unaware that the 36 unit area had become available on the expiry of EL 6499 on 13 May 2009 and did not know that he could have applied for an exploration licence over that area before CWS applied on 7 August 2009. Mr Martin says that he had checked a departmental website called MinView but that site had not been updated so as to record Lucknow's withdrawal of its renewal application on 13 May 2009 and hence the expiry of EL 6499. Mr Martin claims he was, therefore, denied the opportunity to make his own application during the window of availability of the area between 13 May and 7 August 2009. As a consequence, Mr Martin submits that EL 7547 is invalid. I reject this claim for four reasons.

141 First, Mr Martin has not established any breach of the Mining Act in relation to the keeping of records to the exploration licences EL 6499 or EL 7547.

142 There was no legal obligation under the Mining Act or the Regulations on the Director-General, the Minister or the Department to maintain or update the MinView database. Accordingly, any omission to update the MinView database by recording the withdrawal of Lucknow's application for renewal of EL 6499 and hence the expiry of EL 6499 (if this in fact did occur as Mr Martin claims) does not result in a breach of the Mining Act or the Regulations.

143 In contrast, the Director-General is required under s 159 of the Mining Act to cause a record to be kept of every application for an authority that is duly made under the Act and every authority that is granted, renewed, transferred or cancelled under the Act (s 159(1)). The record is to be made available in such offices of the Department as may be prescribed by the Regulations, for inspection, free of charge, by members of the public (s 159(3)).

144 In practice, the record required by s 159 of the Mining Act is contained in the Titles Administration System ("TAS") database. Graphical information on titles kept on the TAS database can be obtained from the TAS Map application.

145 Extracts from the TAS database (the record kept under s 159) were tendered, one for the title EL 6499 and the other for the applicant/holder Central West Scientific Pty Ltd. The title dealing inquiry for EL 6499 shows Lucknow Gold Ltd to be the holder, a dealing of an application for renewal ("REN"), received on 28 November 2008, but that it was withdrawn, at the holder's request, on 13 May 2009 and determined (expired) on 13 May 2009. The extract for the applicant/holder Central West Scientific Pty Ltd shows that CWS made an application licence application, ELA 3759, on 7 August 2009 and that an exploration licence EL 7547 was granted on 20 May 2010 to CWS. Accordingly, the record required to be kept under s 159 of the Mining Act did record, relevantly, Lucknow making and withdrawing an application for renewal of EL 6499 and the determination (expiry) of the title on 13 May 2009 and CWS applying on 7 August 2009 for and being granted on 20 May 2010 a new exploration licence EL 7547.

146 Mr Martin has not established, therefore, any breach of s 159 of the Mining Act in failing to keep the record of the dealings relating to EL 6499 and EL 7547.

147 Secondly, Mr Martin did not claim, and there is no evidence, that he had a legitimate expectation or was otherwise denied procedural fairness in relation to viewing MinView rather than the TAS database. Unfortunately for Mr Martin, he chose to search MinView only, rather than also search the TAS database which is the record of titles required to be kept under s 159 of the Mining Act. However, Mr Martin does not claim, and in any event there is no evidence, that there were any representations or conduct of the Director-General, the Minister or departmental officers upon which Mr Martin relied that he should restrict his search to MinView and not search the TAS database.

148 Thirdly, Mr Martin does not claim, and there is no evidence, that there were representations or conduct of the Director-General, the Minister or departmental officers that denied Mr Martin the opportunity to make an application for an exploration licence over the area previously the subject of EL 6499. Upon the expiry of EL 6499 on 13 May 2009, the area was available to any person to make an application for an exploration licence. The fact that Mr Martin said he was unaware that the area was unavailable and did not apply for it, did not result in any invalidity of EL 7547.

Alleged equitable interest in EL 7547

149 Mr Martin's ninth ground of challenge is that, because CWS used Mr Martin's confidential intellectual property as a basis for CWS's application for EL 7547, Mr Martin has an equitable interest in EL 7547. I reject this claim.

150 First, the factual basis for this ground of challenge has not been established for the reasons stated in relation to Mr Martin's first ground of challenge.

151 Secondly, if any equitable interest in EL 7547 is to be created, it must be created by an instrument in writing, in accordance with s 160(1) of the Mining Act. Mr Martin, as a person claiming an equitable interest in EL 7547, could apply for registration of the interest under s 161(2) of the Mining Act. The Director-General may, if satisfied, that the applicant holds the interest concerned, register the document by which the equitable interest is evidenced (s 161(4) of the Mining Act). However, the registration of an interest under s 161 is not to be taken to be evidence of the existence of the interest (s 161(7)). Mr Martin has not adduced any evidence establishing the creation of an equitable interest in EL 7547. There is no document evidencing the creation of an equitable interest. Mr Martin has not applied for registration of his claimed equitable interest.

152 Thirdly, even if Mr Martin were to have established an equitable interest in EL 7547, that has no effect on the validity of EL 7547. Indeed, the existence of an equitable interest in EL 7547 presupposes the validity of EL 7547, not its invalidity.

Alleged preferential treatment of CWS

153 Mr Martin's tenth ground of challenge is that the Director-General in executing a business plan for minerals and coal resources in NSW and in offering 5 year exploration licences followed by 25 year mining licences is giving preferential treatment to certain persons, including CWS over other persons, including Mr Martin. I reject this claim. First, there is no evidence to establish the factual foundation for these claims. Secondly, even if Mr Martin's claims had a factual foundation, Mr Martin has not explained the legal basis upon which such facts would result in the invalidity of EL 7547.

Alleged monetary gain from grant of EL 7547

154 Mr Martin's eleventh ground of challenge is that EL 7547 was granted by the Minister to CWS to facilitate personal monetary gain by the Minister and senior executives and junior operational level officers of his department. I reject this claim. There is absolutely no evidence at all supporting this claim.

Conclusion, costs and orders

155 Mr Martin has failed in each of his grounds of challenge to EL 7547. The proceedings should therefore be dismissed.

156 The proceedings are in Class 8 of the Court's jurisdiction. In this class, the usual order as to costs applies, that is that the unsuccessful party should pay the costs of the successful parties. The successful respondents seek an order for costs. The first respondent was legally represented and is entitled to an order for costs. The second respondent, CWS, was represented by an agent, Mr Hetherington. Accordingly, CWS is not entitled to an order for legal costs but it is entitled to be reimbursed for its out-of-pocket expenses: Cachia v Hanes [1994] HCA 14; (1994) 179 CLR 403.

157 Mr Martin did not contest that if he were to be unsuccessful the Court should make its usual order as to costs. However, Mr Martin submitted that the quantum of costs should be proportionate to the case. Mr Martin submitted that the Court should fix an amount of the costs and he nominated the sum of $10,000.

158 In the circumstances of this case, costs should follow the event and Mr Martin should pay the costs of the first respondent and the disbursements of the second respondent. I do not consider that Mr Martin has established circumstances and an evidentiary basis for making a fixed sum costs order. Mr Martin did not claim, and there was no evidence adduced, that the respondents' conduct before or during the hearing increased the costs of the proceedings; to the contrary, the costs incurred by the respondents in the proceedings are a direct result of Mr Martin's conduct before and during the hearing.

159 Mr Martin has also not pointed to any facts or circumstances, and has not established an evidentiary basis, supporting his claim that a usual costs order would not be proportionate to the nature, importance and complexity of the proceedings. A usual costs order requires costs to be assessed on a party/party basis and having regard to, amongst other things, whether or not it was reasonable to carry out the work to which the costs relate, whether or not the work was carried out in a reasonable manner and what is a fair and reasonable amount of costs for the work concerned (see s 364(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession Act 2004). These considerations facilitate proportionality of costs.

160 The Court orders:

1.     The proceedings are dismissed.

2.     Mr Martin is to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceedings.

3.     Mr Martin is to pay the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the second respondent in and for the purpose of the proceedings.

 

**********

Appendix "A"

MARTIN v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

LEC No. 80004 of 2010

Summary of grounds of challenge to EL 7547 stated in opening by

Mr Martin

1. Use and supply of confidential information

• The second respondent's application for the exploration licence was based on the applicant's confidential intellectual property (paras 17 and 18 of the amended points of claim (APOC)).
• The first respondent provided the applicant's confidential intellectual property to the second respondent (para 18 of the APOC).
• The first respondent provided the second respondent with information not known to the general public or other potentially interested parties (paras 14-16 and 20 of the APOC).

2. Failure to consider relevant matters

The first respondent failed to take into consideration in deciding to grant EL 7547 to the second respondent that the second respondent and its associated entities had not explored the area covered by EL 7547 in good faith (para 13 of the APOC).

3. Instrument and exercise of delegation

• The instrument of delegation dated 8 December 2004 is null and void (para 27 of the APOC).
• The instrument of delegation was cancelled or withdrawn (para 33 of the APOC).
• The instrument of delegation did not authorise the departmental officer(s) who purported to grant EL 7547 (made by Ms Chris Cottier and approved by Mr Steve Hughes) (paras 34-39, 42-44 of the APOC, see also paras 5-7).
• The exercise of the delegated power to grant EL 7547 miscarried because there is no evidence of the state of mind of the officer(s) who purportedly made the decision to grant EL 7547 (paras 40-41 of the APOC).

4. The second respondent's application for EL 7547 invalid

The second respondent's application for EL 7547 did not comply with the Mining Act 1992 and Mining Regulation 2010 including in not providing required financial information (para 12 of the APOC) and therefore was not a valid application for the Minister to approve.

5. Exploration licence not validly executed

• The exploration licence 7547 document was not validly signed or witnessed on the part of the Minister (paras 8 and 9 of the APOC).
• The exploration document was not executed in accordance with s 127 of the Corporations Act 2001 (para 10 of the APOC).

6. Breach of good faith

The second respondent's application for and the first respondent's grant of EL 7547 vitiated a fundamental principle of the Mining Act of good faith (not expressly in the APOC but implicit in other grounds of challenge such as use and supply of confidential information (paras 14-20 of the APOC) and challenge re amendments to the Mining Act (paras 29-32 of the APOC)).

7. Grant of new exploration licence circumvented policy of renewal only with 50% reduction in area

• The Mining Act requires a renewal of exploration licences to reduce the area by 50%.
• A departmental policy requires renewal of exploration licences to reduce the area by 50%. The first respondent followed this policy in relation to others.
• The Mining Act and policy should not be circumvented by applicants applying for and being granted a new exploration licence instead of renewing an existing exploration licence.
• The first respondent in granting EL 7547 acted contrary to these requirements in granting a new exploration licence or, alternatively, in granting the new exploration licence without a 50% reduction of area (paras 47-56 of the APOC).

8. Applicant denied opportunity to apply for EL 7547

The first respondent did not publicise and the applicant was unaware that applications would be made for EL 7547 and the applicant was denied the opportunity to apply to be granted EL 7547 (para 2 of the APOC).

9. Applicant has equitable interest in EL 7547

The second respondent used the applicant's confidential intellectual property as a basis for the second respondent's application for EL 7547 and therefore the applicant has an equitable interest in EL 7547 (para 3 of the APOC).

[Note: this is not a ground of challenge of the validity of EL 7547].

10. Preferential treatment of the second respondent

The Director General of the Department is executing a business plan which gives preferential treatment to certain persons, including the second respondent, over other persons, including the applicant (paras 23 and 24 of the APOC).

11. Grant of EL 7547 for personal monetary gain

The first respondent granted EL 7547 to the second respondent to facilitate personal monetary gain by the then Minister and departmental officer (para 22 of the APOC).

Decision last updated: 04 May 2011