❓ Mr. Birney's question concerns a dispute between James Point Port Development and LandCorp regarding land use for the Perth desalination plant construction. LandCorp failed to notify James Point of the Water Corporation's temporary use of land, leading to legal action, which was resolved through indemnification and a new undertaking.
AnsweredQoN 423Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
1(a) James Point Port Development (James Point) issued proceedings against the Minister for Lands (and others) seeking an interlocutory injunction preventing continued use of a section of Cockburn Sound Location 1864. The matter arose following LandCorp allowing the Water Corporation permission for temporary use of a site of approximately 2.78 hectares, of a 12.63 hectare parcel of land, to assist in the construction of the Perth desalination plant. Under the May 2004 undertaking LandCorp should have given notice of any intended dealing (including the Water Corporation use of the land) on the land and, due to an administrative misunderstanding, failed to do so. 2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point. LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
The matter arose following LandCorp allowing the Water Corporation permission for temporary use of a site of approximately 2.78 hectares, of a 12.63 hectare parcel of land, to assist in the construction of the Perth desalination plant. Under the May 2004 undertaking LandCorp should have given notice of any intended dealing (including the Water Corporation use of the land) on the land and, due to an administrative misunderstanding, failed to do so. 2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point. LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
Under the May 2004 undertaking LandCorp should have given notice of any intended dealing (including the Water Corporation use of the land) on the land and, due to an administrative misunderstanding, failed to do so. 2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point. LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point. LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
The matter arose following LandCorp allowing the Water Corporation permission for temporary use of a site of approximately 2.78 hectares, of a 12.63 hectare parcel of land, to assist in the construction of the Perth desalination plant. Under the May 2004 undertaking LandCorp should have given notice of any intended dealing (including the Water Corporation use of the land) on the land and, due to an administrative misunderstanding, failed to do so. 2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point. LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
Under the May 2004 undertaking LandCorp should have given notice of any intended dealing (including the Water Corporation use of the land) on the land and, due to an administrative misunderstanding, failed to do so. 2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point. LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point. LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land. 2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
11 October 2005
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
28 days
1) Yes.
1(a) James Point Port Development (James Point) issued proceedings against the Minister for Lands (and others) seeking an interlocutory injunction preventing continued use of a section of Cockburn Sound Location 1864.
The matter arose following LandCorp allowing the Water Corporation permission for temporary use of a site of approximately 2.78 hectares, of a 12.63 hectare parcel of land, to assist in the construction of the Perth desalination plant.
Under the May 2004 undertaking LandCorp should have given notice of any intended dealing (including the Water Corporation use of the land) on the land and, due to an administrative misunderstanding, failed to do so.
2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point.
LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land.
2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
1(a) James Point Port Development (James Point) issued proceedings against the Minister for Lands (and others) seeking an interlocutory injunction preventing continued use of a section of Cockburn Sound Location 1864.
The matter arose following LandCorp allowing the Water Corporation permission for temporary use of a site of approximately 2.78 hectares, of a 12.63 hectare parcel of land, to assist in the construction of the Perth desalination plant.
Under the May 2004 undertaking LandCorp should have given notice of any intended dealing (including the Water Corporation use of the land) on the land and, due to an administrative misunderstanding, failed to do so.
2) LandCorp provided James Point confirmation no permanent infrastructure would be placed upon the land arising out of the Water Corporation use of the land which satisfied the concern of James Point.
LandCorp agreed to indemnify, through the Minister for Lands, James Point legal costs in recognition of its failure to give James Point notice as required under the undertaking of May 2004 and gave a new undertaking to James Point to provide 22 days notice of any future dealing in the land.
2(a) Neither the original nor the revised undertaking prevents LandCorp from dealing with the land. It merely requires LandCorp to give notice to James Point.
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.