❓ Hon George Cash asks about litigation and breaches of legislation related to energy and native title in WA between 2001-2003. The answer details breaches of the Electricity Act and Gas Standards Act, native title litigation, and legal action against the Gas Access Regulator.
AnsweredQoN 606Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(b) 2002; or (c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
7 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for Housing and Works representing the Deputy Premier
Response time
36 days
(1)-(2) Nil Office of Energy (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes* (c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Office of Energy (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes* (c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) (a) Yes (b) Yes* (c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(b) Yes* (c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
- 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
- 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
- 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
*Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Not applicable
Office of Energy (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes* (c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) (a) Yes (b) Yes* (c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(b) Yes* (c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(c) Yes* (2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Yes (a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(a) In 2001: - 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
- 66 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 27 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(b) In 2002: - 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
- 46 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 10 breaches of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations (c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(c) In 2003 (to date – 8 April 2003) - 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
- 25 breaches of the Electricity Act and Regulations - 1 breach of the Gas Standards Act and Regulations *Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
*Note: From 1 July 2002, the Technical & Safety Division of the Office of Energy transferred to the Department of Consumer & Employment Protection. However, legislation has not yet been passed reflecting this changed arrangement and the Director of Energy Safety who prosecutes breaches of safety legislation, has a dual reporting role to both the Minister for Energy and Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection. Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Office of Native Title 1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
1. Neither the Office of Native Title, nor its predecessor the Native Title Unit has been a plaintiff or defendant in any litigation or Court action during the period 2001 - 2003. However the State is a respondent to every native title application lodged in respect of land or waters within the State's jurisdiction and the Office of Native Title coordinates the State's participation in this litigation (and in any mediation process involving these matters). Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Office of Gas Access Regulation (1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) The Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator was named as a defendant in respect of an action before the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal in 2001. On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
On 16 August 2001, Epic Energy issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator. Epic Energy sought to have the Regulator's Draft Decision for the proposed Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline Access Arrangement quashed, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding with the Draft Decision. This matter was the subject of a Supreme Court hearing held over the period 21 November 2001 to 28 November 2001. The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
The decision of the court was handed down on the 23 August 2002, followed by a further hearing on 28 November 2002 at which the parties made submissions on the declaratory orders and costs. The court handed down its final orders on 20 December 2002. While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
While the court found that the Regulator's Draft Decision contained some errors of law, the court did not set aside the Draft Decision, did not consider it necessary to grant Epic Energy the prerogative relief it sought and, contrary to Epic Energy's claims, found that procedural fairness was afforded to the company. The court also noted that Epic Energy did not succeed on every point and that substantial and significant aspects of the case presented by Epic Energy were unsuccessful. Further, the court recognised that, in part, Epic Energy succeeded on bases that it did not advance. In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
In relation to the final orders, the court said that it was not persuaded that the manner in which the Regulator conducted its case before the court caused the Regulator to stray outside the limited role that was appropriate to his statutory function, in accordance with the principle enunciated by the High Court in the Hardiman decision. Accordingly, the Regulator was not required to pay Epic Energy's costs. (2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) On 13 December 2001, the joint venturers of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline issued a writ in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against the Regulator and the State of Western Australia. The joint venture owners sought to have the Draft Decision overturned, arguing that the Regulator should be ordered to assess its Access Arrangement according to law and sought to prohibit the Regulator from proceeding. The joint venturers sought, in their statement of claim, a declaration that sections of the Gas Code and parts of the Draft Decision relating to Reference Tariffs have, or alternatively, are likely to have a material adverse effect on the legitimate business interests of the owners, and accordingly have no effect in accordance with sub-clause 21(3) of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline Agreement Act 1994. The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
The action, initiated by the owners of the Goldfields Gas Pipeline in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, was discontinued following the Regulator having issued a notice on the 6 November 2002 advising that he will amend his Draft Decision for the Goldfields Gas Pipeline taking into consideration, among other things, the decision of the Supreme Court relating to the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. The Regulator was not required to pay the costs of the applicant. (3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(3) An originating summons was served on the Western Australian Independent Gas Pipelines Access Regulator by Epic Energy on 21 November 2002 challenging his ability to recover the legal costs that he incurred in responding to the Supreme Court proceedings relating to the Draft Decision for the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline referred to in 1 above. Among other things, Epic Energy is seeking declarations that: a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
a. parts of the Gas Pipelines Access (WA) (Funding) Regulations 1999 (Funding Regulations) are invalid insofar as those regulations impose a charge on a pipeline operator where the Regulator did not perform any particular function in connection with that pipeline operator; and b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
b. the Funding Regulations may not impose a fee or charge according to the costs of or incidental to the Regulator participating in proceedings in the Supreme Court, which costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge. On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
On advice from Senior Counsel, it is the Regulator's intention to defend the action brought by Epic Energy. Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Office of the Auditor General (1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) No (2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Not applicable Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Department of Treasury and Finance (1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) The Commissioner of State Revenue is involved on an ongoing basis in a range of court actions associated with appeals, prosecutions and recovery matters relating to the range of statutes for which he has administration. (2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Given the extent of resources involved in their preparation, I am not willing to have prepared the requested summary for each and every case of litigation and court action. Furthermore, in many cases, secrecy provisions within the relevant statutes would prevent a range of details from being provided. Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
Western Power Corporation (1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) - (2) Western Power has been involved in many legal actions during this period. To provide a summary on each action would be onerous and time consuming. In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
In summary, Western Power defends legal actions bought against it and commences legal actions to preserve the company's position. These legal actions cover such things as commercial arrangements, breaches of Act and Regulations, meter tampering and recovery of money owed to the Corporation. WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
WA Treasury Corporation (1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(1) (a) - (c) No (2) Not applicable
(2) Not applicable
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.