❓ Hon George Cash asks about legal actions involving the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries portfolio in 2002 and 2003. The answer details numerous court cases involving the Department of Agriculture, Potato Marketing Corporation, Perth Market Authority, and Department of Fisheries.
AnsweredQoN 592Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(b) 2002; or (c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
(c) 2003?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
8 May 2003
Responded by
Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Response time
37 days
Department of Agriculture (1) (a) - (c) Agriculture Department - Environmental Solutions International Ltd - Incitec Pty Ltd - State of WA and others - Wongan Hills spillage of chemicals - Supreme Court No. CIV 1668 of 1997 TC & JC Biddulph v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Local Court Action No. 22313 of 2001) Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) (a) - (c) Agriculture Department - Environmental Solutions International Ltd - Incitec Pty Ltd - State of WA and others - Wongan Hills spillage of chemicals - Supreme Court No. CIV 1668 of 1997 TC & JC Biddulph v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Local Court Action No. 22313 of 2001) Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Agriculture Department - Environmental Solutions International Ltd - Incitec Pty Ltd - State of WA and others - Wongan Hills spillage of chemicals - Supreme Court No. CIV 1668 of 1997 TC & JC Biddulph v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Local Court Action No. 22313 of 2001) Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
TC & JC Biddulph v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Local Court Action No. 22313 of 2001) Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) (a) - (c) Agriculture Department - Environmental Solutions International Ltd - Incitec Pty Ltd - State of WA and others - Wongan Hills spillage of chemicals - Supreme Court No. CIV 1668 of 1997 TC & JC Biddulph v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Local Court Action No. 22313 of 2001) Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Agriculture Department - Environmental Solutions International Ltd - Incitec Pty Ltd - State of WA and others - Wongan Hills spillage of chemicals - Supreme Court No. CIV 1668 of 1997 TC & JC Biddulph v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Local Court Action No. 22313 of 2001) Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
TC & JC Biddulph v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Local Court Action No. 22313 of 2001) Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Civil Service Association of Western Australia Incorporated v Chief Executive Officer, Department of Agriculture (Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission 2002 WAIRC 04962) Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Commissioner of Soil and Land Conservation v Nabarlek Nominees Pty Ltd, Soiland Garden Suppliers Pty Ltd and BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd (Supreme Court Action No. CIV2926 of 2001) Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Cultivaust and the State of Tasmania v Grain Pool of WA and the State of Western Australia (Federal Court Action No. S104 of 1999 - consolidated with No. S66 of 2001) Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Department of Agriculture - Alex Hollick; Civil Service Association of WA; WA Industrial Relations Commission; Application No. PSAC 10 of 2002; Contract of Employment; Premier's Circular on Conversion to Permanency Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Gary John Falzun v Graeme Robertson (Chief Executive Officer of Agriculture WA) (Industrial Magistrate's Court Complaint No. 288 of 2000) John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
John Nominees Pty Ltd v James Dixon (on behalf of the Department of Agriculture) - Supreme Court Appeal No. SJA 1052 of 2002 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Bronzewing Investments Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Regulations 1992 Regulation 4 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Dandaragan Olives Management Limited - Regulation 4 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Department of Agriculture - Limpet Holdings Pty Ltd; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - McCallum Kumari Jane; Soil and Land Conservation Regulations Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - Agriculture WA - Sarah Sayers; Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Petty Sessions - WA Meat Industry Authority - Princi Pasquale; Western Australian Meat Industry Authority Act Regulation 9 Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Anthony De Pledge and Preston John Suijdendorp (officer of the Department of Agriculture) v John Russell Miller Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Tilba Tilba Stud and others v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV 2344 of 2000) Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Barry Stephen Thomson v Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Western Australian Information Commissioner (Supreme Court Appeal No.1094 of 2002) Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Dean Morton Wood v Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Agriculture (Supreme Court Action No. CIV1051 of 2000) There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
There are a number of minor debt recovery actions not listed in this response as they are considered too minor. (2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(2) The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The provision of a summary for each action will require considerable reallocation of Departmental resources however should the Hon Member require details of a specific action I will arrange to have the information to provided to him as soon as possible. Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Potato Marketing Corporation (1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) - (2) The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Potato Marketing Corporation has taken the following action as Plaintiff during 2001-2002 to ensure compliance with the Marketing of Potatoes Act and Regulations. 2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2001- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $3,250 plus costs of $4,622 2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2002- Defendant Gaterange Pty Ltd. Found guilty and fined $15,000 plus costs of $500 No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
No other litigation or other Court action has commenced during the periods detailed. Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Market Authority (1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) - (2) The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Perth Market Authority has been plaintiff in the following actions in order to recover outstanding rent and outgoings due under a lease agreement. Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Local Court Action 14836/2002 Defendant - A Khan Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Local Court Action 23968/2002 Defendant - M Fontana Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Perth Local Court Action 23970/2002 Defendant - Melonglow Pty Ltd Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Department of Fisheries (1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1a) 2001 – Yes. Three matters. (1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1b) 2002 – Yes. Three matters. (1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1c) 2003 – Yes. One matter. (2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(2) Summary of actions involving the Department of Fisheries 2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2001 Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Two matters that had arisen in previous years, involving claims for workers compensation, were settled out of court on confidential terms. Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Jeffrey and Gael Palmer commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against the State of Western Australia. The Palmers allege that as a consequence of alleged negligent misrepresentations made to them by officers of the Department of Fisheries the Palmers have suffered loss in the amount of $973,694 plus interest. The matter is being defended. 2002 The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the criminal appeal prosecution matter of Palmer v Ostrowski SJA 1091 of 2001. Mr Palmer was charged with offences against the Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 and the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 for fishing for rock lobster in a prohibited area. The magistrate convicted Mr Palmer but the Full Court of the Supreme Court, by a majority decision, allowed the appeal on the basis that Mr Palmer's mistake was a mistake of fact and therefore provided a defence under the Criminal Code. Ostrowski has applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Supreme Court, Kennedy J, delivered judgment in Shine Fisheries Pty Ltd v The Minister for Fisheries [2002] WASCA 11, on 6 February 2002. The Supreme Court considered two main matters. The first concerned whether the Executive Director had a duty to consider a fresh application in circumstances where the applicant had failed to lodge an objection to a previous proposed decision within the statutory time period for lodging an objection. The second issue concerned the validity of clause 8(4) of the Cockburn Sound (Line and Pot) Management Plan (Plan), subsidiary legislation made by the Minister for Fisheries pursuant to s32 of the Fisheries Act 1905 and transitioned under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). Clause 8(4) of the Plan purported to provide that 'the nominated operator of a licence shall not be replaced'. Kennedy J considered that in the circumstances there was no statutory duty on the Executive Director to consider and determine the fresh application. Kennedy J further ruled that clause 8(4) of the Plan was invalid as being beyond power. The provision was therefore not validly transitioned when the FRMA came into force. Kennedy J rejected argument that the entire Plan was rendered invalid by the invalidity of clause 8(4). The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The Executive Director applied successfully to the Supreme Court to lift an injunction that had been put in place in 1996 to prevent registration of dealings with a fishing boat licence during civil proceedings between two disputing parties. The civil proceedings had been withdrawn some time ago but the injunction had remained in place. A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
A matter that was commenced previously, involving a workers compensation claim, was resolved out of court on confidential terms. 2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
2003 The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
The special leave application to the High Court in the case of Ostrowski v Palmer SJA 1091 of 2001 is to be heard by the High Court on 9 May 2003. If the application is successful the case may be argued fully before the High Court at a later date in 2003 or subsequently in 2004. Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Forest Products Commission (1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(1) (a) No litigation (b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(b) No litigation (c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(c) Contractual dispute with Mr W N Crocker - ongoing (2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
(2) Mr W N Crocker placed a writ alleging the Department of Conservation and Land Management had prior to 16 November 2000 (when the Forest Products Commission incorporated) and the Forest Products Commission now has, an obligation to sign a minor production contract for log supply. Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Mr Crocker has received advice from, and attended meetings with the Forest Products Commission, with several legal practitioners including barrister Hockley, all of whom appear to have accepted that the Forest Products Commission has no case to answer. Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
Mr Crocker represented himself at the hearing of his writ and the Forest Products Commission was represented by the Ministry of Justice. Mediation was considered inappropriate and Mr Crocker was to seek further legal advice on advisability of continuing his action.
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.