❓ Details litigation actions involving the Insurance Commission of WA, Lottery Commission, and Water Corporation in 2002 and 2003, including unfair dismissal claims, Bell Group matters, and various lawsuits against the Water Corporation.
AnsweredQoN 598Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(b) 2002; or (c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for Government Enterprises
Response time
38 days
2 Insurance Commission of WA v Christine Payne. WA Industrial Relations Commission Action M232/2001. Unfair dismissal claim. Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV and Commonwealth of Australia (ATO) v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1320 of 2001. Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV, Commonwealth of Australia (ATO), Bell Group Finance Pty Ltd and Antony Woodings v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1126 of 2002 These actions raise complaints made by the Banks about arrangements made between the Bell Group creditors who have funded the liquidators and one of their arrangements with one of those liquidators. The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV and Commonwealth of Australia (ATO) v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1320 of 2001. Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV, Commonwealth of Australia (ATO), Bell Group Finance Pty Ltd and Antony Woodings v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1126 of 2002 These actions raise complaints made by the Banks about arrangements made between the Bell Group creditors who have funded the liquidators and one of their arrangements with one of those liquidators. The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV, Commonwealth of Australia (ATO), Bell Group Finance Pty Ltd and Antony Woodings v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1126 of 2002 These actions raise complaints made by the Banks about arrangements made between the Bell Group creditors who have funded the liquidators and one of their arrangements with one of those liquidators. The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
These actions raise complaints made by the Banks about arrangements made between the Bell Group creditors who have funded the liquidators and one of their arrangements with one of those liquidators. The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV and Commonwealth of Australia (ATO) v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1320 of 2001. Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV, Commonwealth of Australia (ATO), Bell Group Finance Pty Ltd and Antony Woodings v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1126 of 2002 These actions raise complaints made by the Banks about arrangements made between the Bell Group creditors who have funded the liquidators and one of their arrangements with one of those liquidators. The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
Insurance Commission of WA, The Law Debenture Trust Corporation Plc, Bell Group NV, Commonwealth of Australia (ATO), Bell Group Finance Pty Ltd and Antony Woodings v CBA, NAB, SG Australia Limited, Standard Chartered Bank Australia Limited and Standard Chartered Bank, Westpac, HSBC Australia Limited, Banco Espirito Santo, Bank of Scotland, Bank Austria, Credit Lyonnais, Dresdner Bank, Credit Agricole Indosuez, Lloyds TSB Bank, Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, Gentra Limited, KBC Bank Verzekerings, Gulf Bank, DG Bank, Skopbank. Supreme Court of WA action CIV 1126 of 2002 These actions raise complaints made by the Banks about arrangements made between the Bell Group creditors who have funded the liquidators and one of their arrangements with one of those liquidators. The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
These actions raise complaints made by the Banks about arrangements made between the Bell Group creditors who have funded the liquidators and one of their arrangements with one of those liquidators. The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
The plaintiff Banks have applied to join these claims into Supreme Court of WA action CIV 2061 of 1996 Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
Note: During every year, numerous litigation actions take place in respect to the settling of insurance claims as part of the core business (Motor Vehicle Personal Injury and RiskCover) of the Insurance Commission of Western Australia. LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
LOTTERY COMMISSION 1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
1. (a) – (c) No 2. Not applicable WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
WATER CORPORATION (1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(1) (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(b) Yes (c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(c) Yes (2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
(2) PART A: WATER CORPORATION AS DEFENDANT 1. University of Western Australia v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2432 of 1999 Claim The University of WA claims its development opportunities for land adjacent to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant are impinged upon by the presence of the plant and its odour buffer. 2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
2. Chandler & Others v Water Corporation & Others Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2321 of 2000 Claim Businesses in the vicinity of Felspar Street Maida Vale are claiming damages for alleged negligence/nuisance/breach of statutory duty by the Corporation in the construction of Maida Vale main sewer section 5. 3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
3. Jason Industries Limited v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV/1345/1993 Claim Jason Industries is claiming $1.2 million for damage to its premises and interruption to business as a consequence of a flooding incident. 4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
4. Corrie Bodney Native Title - Combined Metropolitan Claim v State of Western Australia Court Federal Court Plaint. WAG 142 of 1998WAG 149 of 1998 Claim Corrie Bodney and others have lodged a native title claim over the Perth metropolitan area. A decision was handed down by the High Court on 8 August 2002. The decision stated that extinguishment of native title rights may be partial or total. 5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
5. Ross Mackellar v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 86 of 2002 Claim Mr Mackellar injured his leg and issued a writ claiming unspecified damages. 6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
6. William Leonard East v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2296 of 2000 Claim Mr William Leonard East of Manjimup claims the Corporation is responsible for losses to his cauliflower crops that he alleges was caused by water from his dam being contaminated by effluent from the Manjimup Wastewater Treatment Plant. 7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
7. Warren Tucker Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 2352 of 2000 Claim It is alleged that table grapes on the Tucker property were damaged as a result of the earthworks carried out by the Corporation. 8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
8. R & M Ramage Pty Ltd v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1327 of 2000 Claim For costs incurred and losses suffered from several sewerage overflows in the below ground units of the Ocean Centre Hotel. 9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
9. Christopher and Sandra Boyle v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1567 of 2001 Claim Christopher and Sandra Boyle (the Boyles) are the former registered proprietors of the property at Lot 5 Stansfield Road, Harvey (the Boyle land). The Boyles allege that throughout the subdivision and development application processes the Water Authority/Corporation and WRC were aware that the Boyle land would be required for the proposed construction of the Stirling/Harvey dam yet no advice was received. The Boyles alleged that the ongoing failure to advise them of the plans for the dam, warranted an award of aggravated damages. 10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
10. Blythewood Estate v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1135 of 2001 Claim Part of the Stirling/Harvey pipeline was construction through the property owned by the Blythewood Pastoral Company (Blythewood). Blythewood is a cattle business and the works disrupted the grazing of their cattle. Blythewood claiming damages for disruptions to the business 11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
11. Craig Anthony Bell v Water Corporation Court District Court of WA Plaint. 1682 of 2001 Claim Damages for Personal injuries. 12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
12. George Webber and Ina Webber v Water Corporation Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2159 of 2002 Claim Claim is for damages to the plaintiff’s house caused by cracking. It is alleged that the cracking was caused by the Corporation undertaking infill sewerage works opposite the house. PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
PART B: WATER CORPORATION AS PLAINTIFF 1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
1. Water Corporation v Polypit Pty Ltd et al Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 2276 of 2000 Claim damages from product failure. 2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
2. Water Corporation and Others v Shire of Brookton Pingelly Court Supreme Court of WA Plaint. CIV 1823 of 1998 Claim Negligence in allowing fire to escape and causing property damages. 3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
3. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Local Court Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous debt recovery actions. 4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
4. Water Corporation v Various Others Court Court of Petty Sessions Plaint. Claim Water Corporation is Plaintiff in numerous prosecutions relating to breach of water legislation (eg water restriction infringements)
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.