Miner appeals McArthur River expansion ruling

McArthur River Mining (MRM) has lodged an appeal against a Northern Territory Supreme Court ruling that found its expansion near Borroloola was illegally approved.

In April Justice David Angel ruled the Territory Government had illegally approved the mine’s conversion from underground to open cut.

The ruling halted all work at the mine and the Government rushed through emergency legislation last sitting overriding the ruling and allowing the operation to continue.

But MRM’s general manager Brian Hearne says the company wants clarity on the issue of mining authorisations for the benefit of the whole industry and it has decided to appeal.

“The matter is really one of precedent and we really need to set the record straight,” he said.

The appeal was lodged yesterday hearing dates are yet to be set.

By parry/ hearne, ABC

4 responses to “Miner appeals McArthur River expansion ruling

  1. For goodness sake! This is corporate power and money politics at its very worst! A further injustice piled upon injustice. Traditional Owners are prevented from taking further action in the NT Supreme Court by a dodgy Martin Government amendment to what was a shocking piece of CLP legislation in the first place – the 1992 McArthur River Project Ratification Act. But Xstrata, one of the biggest mining companies on the planet, are able to appeal the Court’s original ruling against them. Shame on Clare and (most of her) team – what on earth has happened to those good old Labor values like the ‘fair go’?

  2. It sure is shame on them, Gary. As to the media release? It’s a great bit of spin with two Xstrata contacts to direct “not happy” emails to.

    It would be helpful to have a response to “At issue is a technical point of law…” – you mean a gazillion Xstrata lawyers made a mistake filling out the original application?

    Are the lawyers who represented the BTEG ( or anyone else?) able to share a clear and simple rebuttal of this “technical point” thingy? My reading (as a lay person) was that Justice Angel said that there was no way the Xstrata application indicated a switch from underground to open cut which meant that the application was invalid. Someone, please explain… it helps when writing emails/letters.

    Also, was Justice Angel able to comment on the “environmental assessment”? It’s hard to make a comment (critical or otherwise) if it falls outside the purview of the case.

    And it’s the Xstrata PER assessment the press release refers to rather than the EPA one I presume?

    Like I said… a great bit of self-serving spin. I particularly enjoyed the aggrieved tone when it’s all about ensuring an iron clad legal position.

    I’m really grateful this site exists. Thanks!

  3. Pingback: Traditional Owners fight Xstrata Supreme Court appeal « McArthur River·

  4. Pingback: Breaking the law is not a technicality « McArthur River·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s