This matter concerned a judicial review of the recommendation made by the Warden under s 98(4A) of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) that 10 mining leases held by the applicant Wingstar Investments Pty Ltd be forfeited.
The other party, Mr. Van Blitterswyk, had lodged forfeiture applications in respect of the 10 mining leases, claiming that Wingstar did not meet minimum expenditure requirements on the leases. The Warden concluded that Wingstar failed to comply with expenditure conditions, leading to the recommendation for forfeiture.
Wingstar’s application for judicial review claimed jurisdictional errors in the Warden’s interpretation of expenditure regulations and in particular that the Warden allegedly misconstrued regulation 31 by requiring an assessment of the reasonableness of proposed mining plans.
In its decision handed down on 13 November 2025, the Court allowed the application for judicial review, concluding that the Warden had misconceived the nature of her statutory function or the extent of her powers. The Warden’s misconstruction of regulation 31 warranted a re-evaluation of the expenditure claims. The decision includes an analysis of the legal principles of judicial review, the construction of regulation 31 and the materiality of the Warden’s error.
On the topical issue of whether the expenditure in question comprised expenditure “on or in connection with mining” on the tenement, the Court declined to undertake the assessment, noting that this was the function of the Warden.