Belosevic & Repanovic [2005] SAERDC 5 (25 January 2005)

Last Updated: 1 February 2005

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

BELOSEVIC & REPANOVIC

Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole

25 January 2005

MINING LAW

Appeals against decision of Warden's Court denying applications for suspension of labour conditions - appeals dismissed.

Mining Act 1971, referred to.

BELOSEVIC & REPANOVIC
[2005] SAERDC 5


THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT:

1	Mr Belosovic and Mr Repanovic ("the appellants") sought the suspension of labour conditions on precious stones claim registered number 75852 and 75853 ("the claims"). The claims were the subject of other proceedings, which have now been largely resolved. The appellants argued, however, that they may have an action for damages in relation to a period of time in which other people were in occupation of the claims. The appellants seek a six month period in which to have experts visit and examine the claims, presumably to assess the extent of the loss suffered by the appellants, if any. The appellants also say they wish to forestall a possible argument in the potential future action that work by them in the claim, such as blasting, has caused the damage that may be the subject of the future proceedings.
2	The Senior Warden dismissed the application for the suspension of labour conditions. The appellants appealed to this Court. The argument presented at first instance may have been somewhat different from that advanced on appeal. At first instance, it seems that the appellants sought to link their application to the costs orders in the previous proceedings. Before me, the argument revolved around the potential claim for damages.
3	There is nothing in the argument advanced by the appellants before this Court which would justify a suspension of labour conditions. In addition, Ms Trenham, the Opal Mining Registrar, of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources SA, informed the Court that a blanket exemption from labour conditions is granted as a matter of course from 15 December until 15 March each year. The appellants therefore have until 15 March 2005 to undertake whatever investigation they require.
4	No basis has been made out upon which the decision at first instance should be overturned. The appeal is dismissed.