Legal development

Queensland Land Court developments in 2025 

By Libby McKillop, Paul Wilson and Tony Denholder

13 April 2026

Share Share
Print
Queensland, Australia
Share
Print

    What you need to know

    Land Court clarifies material changes in circumstances for mining lease

    Summary

    • The Land Court in Fairhill Coking Coal Pty Ltd v Comiskey & Anor (No 2) [2025] QLC 9 clarified the threshold for establishing a "material change in circumstances for the mining lease" under section 283B of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) (MRA), dismissing an application that sought to trigger a review of previously agreed compensation.
    • The Land Court held that late compensation payments, an email containing an "Agreed Process" to renegotiate, and a Supreme Court decision did not amount to a "material change in circumstances for a mining lease". The Court held that section 283B is directed to changes with operational effect (for example, changed mining methods that alter impacts), not mere "on paper" changes or shifts in land value over time.
    • Even where a breach of a lease condition occurs, it will not automatically qualify as a material change. The question will turn on operational effects and significance to the compensation framework.

    Landholder sought to trigger a review of compensation under section 283B MRA

    The miner held a mining lease over land owned by the landowners, with a conduct and compensation agreement (CCA) dated 27 August 2020 requiring staged payments on specified dates. The miner missed the payment dates, and the parties reached an agreement by email on 3 April 2023 (the "Agreed Process") which contemplated either payment by 28 April 2023 or, failing that, a structured process to renegotiate the compensation payable supported by independent valuations and mediation.

    The miner ultimately paid the outstanding $7.45 million plus interest, and both parties undertook valuations and mediation, but did not reach a new agreement.

    The landowners then sought declarations in the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court rejected any suggestion that the original compensation agreement had been undone and pointed to section 283B as the proper pathway for review.

    Competing applications were then filed in the Land Court. The miner sought a preliminary determination that the pleaded particulars did not amount to a material change of circumstances. The landowners sought declarations that the miner was bound by a duty to cooperate to enable the Land Court to review compensation and was precluded from contending otherwise.

    Statutory framework and principles

    Section 283B permits the Land Court to review compensation only if there has been a material change in circumstances for the mining lease since the original agreement or determination.

    The Land Court reaffirmed that section 283B involves a two-stage test: that the circumstances have changed, and that the change is material (adopting the test in Nothdurft & Anor v QGC Pty Ltd & Ors (2017) 38 QLCR 91). Further, it held that a material change is generally concerned with real world operational changes relevant to the impacts for which compensation was originally assessed.

    The Land Court held that movements in market value, or changes that exist only "on paper", generally do not qualify, whereas operational changes such as closing a road, unexpected noise exceedances or water impacts that burden the landholder are more likely to do so.

    The landholders identified four alleged material changes:

    • breach of a lease condition by failing to pay on time;
    • the "Agreed Process" to renegotiate compensation;
    • the Supreme Court's decision and a purported duty to cooperate; and
    • a substantial increase in losses since the compensation was agreed, including changes in land value.

    The miner argued that section 283B(1)(b) is directed to operational changes affecting land or operations, not breaches of payment timing or market movements, and that the Agreed Process was a separate contractual step and not a material change within section 283B(1)(b).

    The Land Court's analysis

    The Land Court held that:

    • late payment, though serious and potentially a breach of a lease condition, did not amount to a material change for the mining lease in this case, and that the parties already contemplated non-compliance when the CCA was negotiated by including a dispute resolution mechanism in the agreement;
    • the "Agreed Process" was a separate contractual process and not itself a material change in circumstances for the mining lease;
    • the Supreme Court's remarks did not compel the Land Court to conclude that there had been a material change in circumstances for the mining lease (see below); and
    • a reframing of losses via increased land value between agreement and payment was insufficient; the payment of interest addressed delay, and ordinary market movements do not satisfy section 283B(1)(b).

    The Land Court accepted that it should give effect to the Supreme Court's reasons where appropriate and recognised the Supreme Court's observations that the parties contemplated "cooperation" to facilitate a Land Court review of compensation if they could not agree. However, it held that those remarks did not bind it to find a material change, did not oblige the miner to refrain from pressing its application, and that "cooperate" could not be equated with "capitulate."

    The Land Court dismissed the landowners' general application and held that the pleaded particulars did not identify a material change in circumstances for the mining lease under section 283B(1)(b), leaving the original compensation in place and inviting short submissions on orders.

    Authors: Roxane Read, Senior Associate and Libby McKillop, Counsel.

    __________________________________________________________

    Land Court recommends mine expansion not be approved because of inadequate GHG emissions mitigation measures

    Summary

    • In Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5, the Land Court recommended the Minister not approve an application for a mining lease related to the extension of a Central Bowen Basin thermal coal mine unless and until the applicants show "real and significant progress" towards mitigating GHG emissions.
    • The Court also held that the mine's increased GHG emissions would engage, and limit, the right to life and right to protection of children under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), and that those limitations could only be justified on a fuller evidentiary record showing credible mitigation.

    Third parties object to extension of Central Bowen Basin mine

    Sungela Pty Ltd and Bowen Investment (Australia) Pty Ltd (the miners) applied for a new mining lease to extend mining operations at the Ensham thermal coal mine in the Central Bowen Basin for a further 20 years.

    Several parties, including Lock the Gate Alliance, lodged objections to the grant of the mining lease. Their objections covered a range of issues, including surface and groundwater impacts and effects on endangered and threatened species. President Stilgoe OAM found those environmental concerns, on the evidence before the Court, were not sufficient to justify refusal. The central issues were instead the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, climate change and human rights.

    All objectors elected to be non-active objectors and did not file submissions with the Court.

    GHG emissions and climate change

    The objectors argued that approving the extension of mining operations would be inconsistent with the Queensland Government's transition to renewable energy and its emission reduction targets.

    The Court received submissions that the relevant environmental authority required the development of a GHG emissions reduction plan and that the miners intended to implement various measures to limit emissions. The Court emphasised, however, that no emissions reduction plan was provided to the Court, nor evidence of what, if any, of the identified measures had been implemented.

    Against that background, the Court considered it could not recommend approval because the evidence necessary to support a recommendation for grant was not before it. The Court recommended that approval not be granted unless and until the miners demonstrate real and significant progress towards mitigating their GHG emissions.

    Relevance of the Human Rights Act in mining lease applications

    As confirmed in Waratah Coal Pty Ltd v Youth Verdict Ltd & Ors (No 6) [2022] QLC 21, the Court acts in an administrative capacity when performing functions conferred by Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) and Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EP Act). As a public entity, under section 58(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Court's decision must be compatible with human rights and give proper consideration to any human rights relevant to the decision.

    The objections included contentions that multiple rights would be limited beyond what is reasonable or demonstrably justifiable, including the rights to recognition and equality before the law, life, property, privacy, a child's right to protection, and the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

    The miners submitted that only property rights and the right to privacy were engaged. The Court disagreed and was not satisfied that these rights were engaged by the application.

    The Court accepted that the causal link between the new mining lease and potential human rights breaches was more tenuous in this case than in Waratah, mainly because the objectors did not lead evidence on the issue. However, the Court confirmed that the absence of evidence from objectors is not, of itself, a basis to disregard possible human rights impacts.

    The Court also rejected the miners' submission that any balance between potential human rights limitations and the project had already been addressed by the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation when issuing the related environmental authority under the EP Act. Notwithstanding that the Department is also a public entity and must act compatibly with human rights, the Court found that while it is "theoretically possible" that the Department's application of the EP Act's objects necessarily involved consideration of human rights, the environmental authority decision did not "cover the field" for any potential human rights breaches. The Court found that unless and until the Department expressly articulates that it has considered human rights, the Court was to proceed on the basis that it had not.

    Consistent with Waratah, the Court concluded that the right to life and the right to protection of children are engaged and would be limited by the GHG emissions from the proposed mine extension. Whether those limitations are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable depended, to some extent, on the applicant's GHG mitigation strategies, evidence of which was found by the Court to be lacking.

    Decision

    Applying Waratah, the Court found the mining lease was economically sound and acceptable in terms of specific environmental impacts (flora, fauna, and water). However, whether it met broader environmental and social acceptability remained unresolved. Ultimately, the Court recommended against approval, but indicated that with further substantiated and explained GHG mitigation measures, the Court's concerns about wider environmental and social impacts of the expansion could be allayed.

    The mining lease application was granted by the Minister in February 2026, which may indicate that the Court’s concerns were addressed subsequent to the Court’s decision.

    Authors: Lydia O'Neill, Lawyer and Connor Davies, Senior Associate.
    __________________________________________________________​

    Land Court recommends grant of environmental authority despite environmental and human rights concerns

    Summary

    • In Rolleston Coal Holdings Pty Ltd v Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation [2025] QLC 22, the Land Court recommended approval of an extension to the Rolleston Open Cut Coal Mine despite objections from Lock the Gate Alliance Ltd and Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland Inc on grounds of climate change and human rights.
    • The decision underscores a recent trend in Land Court objections hearings: notwithstanding human rights and climate change challenges, coal mine extensions are still being approved where proponents demonstrate robust assessment, monitoring, and appropriate measures.

    Environmental advocacy groups object to a Bowen Basin mine expansion

    Rolleston Coal Holdings Pty Ltd applied to amend its environmental authority (EA) to extend its disturbance footprint at the Rolleston Open Cut Coal Mine in the southern Bowen Basin. Following a public notification process, the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) issued a draft amended EA permitting the extension. Lock the Gate Alliance Ltd and Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland Inc (the objectors) objected to the draft EA but they did not proceed as active objectors at the hearing.

    The Court noted the objections mirrored recent Land Court matters and grouped them as:

    • alleged inadequacies in the assessment process;
    • terrestrial ecology, rehabilitation and offsets;
    • greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air quality;
    • surface water, groundwater and groundwater dependent ecosystems; and
    • social and economic impacts and human rights.

    Assessment process found 'probing and rigorous'

    Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland Inc submitted that DETSI should have required an Environmental Impact Statement for the extension project. The Court disagreed, finding the publicly notified assessment was "probing and rigorous". This was supported by extensive expert reporting commissioned by Rolleston Coal.

    Ecological assessments, rehabilitation and offset plans were adequate

    The objectors alleged insufficient information and assessment of terrestrial ecology impacts and an inadequate rehabilitation plan. The Court rejected these submissions, citing Rolleston Coal's extensive ecology surveys and noting that the rehabilitation plan addressed the objectors' concerns.

    The objectors also challenged offsets, arguing there was insufficient detail about how they would be achieved. The Court found the offsets appropriate, given the designated land's similar management history and the availability of adaptive management if progress lagged. It also noted the ongoing Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC) assessment and the likely Commonwealth offset requirements.

    GHG and air quality concerns effectively addressed

    The existing EA authorised Rolleston Coal to mine up to 19 million tonnes of run-of-mine coal per annum. Rolleston Coal submitted that the proposed extension would not exceed that threshold or extend mine life, although it acknowledged production was expected to increase within the threshold to deliver an additional 33.7 Mt over 20 years.

    The objectors argued that the additional coal produced through the mine's extension was not reflected in the amendment application. The Court was not persuaded and accepted that production would remain under the maximum annual production rate, clarifying the distinction between approved production rate and actual production.

    On emissions, the objectors argued that there was no clear plan to reduce scope 1–3 emissions. The Court disagreed, noting Rolleston Coal's acceptance of draft EA conditions requiring a GHG Abatement Plan and the draft plan before the Court. The Rolleston Open Cut is also covered by the Commonwealth Safeguard Mechanism, so a broad reduction in emissions is expected over time.

    Social, economic and human rights concerns

    The objectors argued that the application failed to address climate change's negative social effects. Rolleston Coal argued that any harms were outweighed by the project's environmental and social benefits. The Court remained neutral, noting that time will determine the validity of Rolleston Coal's contentions about social and economic impacts.

    As required for objections decisions, the Court acknowledged that it was acting in its administrative capacity. As a public entity under section 58(1) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the Court had to make a decision compatible with human rights and give proper consideration to any relevant rights.

    DETSI accepted that, in the context of GHG emissions, the proposed extension would contribute to climate change and potentially limit the rights to life, protection of families and recognition and equality before the law.

    The Court accepted the extension would contribute to climate change directly and indirectly but held that, to the extent rights were engaged, any limitation due to emissions was appropriate and proportionate on the facts.

    The Court distinguished the recent decisions in Re Sungela Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QLC 5 and BHP Coal Pty Ltd & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Environment, Science and Innovation [2024] QLC on their facts and highlighted the difficulty the Court faces in comparative analysis when evidence regarding GHG emissions is presented to the Court.

    Authors: Lydia O'Neill, Lawyer and Roxane Read, Senior Associate.
    __________________________________________________________​

    Energy Company resolves environmental authority Court appeal by agreement

    Summary

    Blue Energy's EA application and the appeal

    Blue Energy, and its wholly owned subsidiary Eureka Petroleum Pty Ltd, had been conducting an exploration drilling campaign for its Bowen Basin coal seam gas assets. Through this campaign, it had identified three blocks as potentially commercially viable. Blue Energy applied for petroleum leases (PLs) for these blocks.

    In January 2022, Blue Energy lodged an application with the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) for an environmental authority (EA) authorising activities for these three applications. The EA application was approved in March 2023. This decision was upheld on internal review, with some variation to the conditions.

    In August 2023, a group known as Environmental Advocacy in Central Queensland Inc (Environmental Advocacy) lodged an appeal of the internal review decision.

    After the notice of appeal was filed, the energy company withdrew its PL applications for two of the blocks.

    Calculation error in figures relevant to EA application – resolved

    In the appeal, DETSI submitted that GHG emissions – including scope 3 emissions – are relevant and necessary considerations for decision-makers assessing an EA application for a petroleum project.

    Queries arose about the accuracy of CSG production and GHG-related figures, which were subsequently described by the energy company as a calculation error which had knock-on effects to the assessment of GHG emissions for the project. The energy company corrected the relevant figures during the appeal, providing updated CSG production and GHG emissions figures to the Court and parties.

    In light of this and some other matters, the parties agreed to resolve the appeal by consent.

    The parties filed a joint statement which proposed orders by consent that the appeal be allowed on the basis that the July 2023 decision to approve the EA (with varied conditions) be set aside and substituted with a decision by the Court to approve a version of the EA annexed to the joint statement, that included additional conditions.

    Other environmental issues addressed through additional conditions on EA

    Environmental Advocacy, in its notice of appeal, challenged the adequacy of the groundwater, flora and fauna investigations and modelling provided in support of the energy company's EA application.

    The energy company agreed to include the following measures in the EA to address these concerns:

    • additional baseline monitoring and reporting on groundwater conditions;
    • six additional monitoring bores (three deep and three shallow) across the Sapphire block;
    • increased monitoring parameters for detecting impacts to groundwater level and quality;
    • a requirement that all native vegetation clearing be undertaken in the presence of a qualified spotter;
    • biodiversity maps to be prepared prior to activities commencing; and
    • additional biodiversity reporting.

    Public interest and human rights also raised

    Environmental Advocacy also challenged the decision to grant the EA on the basis:

    • that the grant would not be in the public interest; and
    • of impacts to human rights, including to the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) as a result of climate change.

    These are now common grounds of challenge for new coal and gas developments in Queensland.

    The Court relied on evidence from the energy company about the economic and social benefits of the proposal. This included evidence that the gas was being used at the Townsville Energy Chemicals Hub Project, a battery materials refinery, and would therefore be used as part of the energy transition. The energy company also gave evidence that the conversion of gas from the proposal to liquefied natural gas and combustion overseas was not currently realistic, limiting the gas produced to East Coast domestic consumption.

    Authors: Connor Davies, Senior Associate and Martin Doyle.
    __________________________________________________________​

    Land Court takes strict approach to disclosure requirements

    Summary

    Recap: Disclosure in the Land Court

    Parties to proceedings in the Land Court may make an application to the Court requiring another party to disclose documents. Disclosure is governed by rules 4, 13 and 14 of the Land Court Rules 2022 (Rules). The Land Court may make an order for disclosure where it is satisfied that an order would achieve the main purposes of the Rules and the Court's objectives, namely:

    • facilitating the just and quick resolution of the issues in a proceeding; and
    • avoiding undue delay, expense and technicality in a proceeding.

    Whitehaven WS Pty Ltd v Australian Conservation Foundation

    The active objectors (Australian Conservation Foundation Inc (ACF) and Mackay Conservation Group Inc (MCG)) in objection proceedings against the Whitehaven Winchester South Coal Project applied for orders for disclosure of various types of documents just weeks before the substantive proceedings were scheduled to commence. These documents were held by a related third party entity (Whitehaven Coal Ltd) of the substantive applicant, Whitehaven WS Pty Ltd.

    The active objectors applied for the disclosure of thirteen categories of documents. This was subsequently narrowed to four contested categories, which broadly comprised documents relating to climate risk assessment and reporting held by Whitehaven Coal Ltd.

    The active objectors contended that the documents were relevant, for a legitimate forensic purpose, and beneficial to the proper conduct of their case and the Court's assessment.

    Whitehaven WS Pty Ltd submitted that disclosure orders in the circumstances would represent a departure from the proper application of the Rules in relation to non-party disclosure. Further, given the lateness of the application in the context of the substantive proceedings, disclosure orders at this stage would be at odds with the main purposes of the Rules.

    The Court refused to make a disclosure order in respect of the remaining contested categories as:

    • the task of obtaining, reviewing and preparing the material for disclosure would be onerous, and would divert resources away from the preparation for the substantive proceedings;
    • it had been open to the active objectors for months to request the documents sought, including by seeking orders in circumstances where the case had been carefully case managed; and
    • the documents sought were likely in excess of what is required for the litigation, and any ambiguity about that rests with the applicant for disclosure.

    Santos TOGA Pty Ltd v Price

    Santos and associated entities (Santos parties) and the owner and occupier of property (the landholder) both made applications for the disclosure of documents for the purpose of separate proceedings in relation to conduct and compensation matters between the Santos parties and the landholder.

    The Santos parties' application for disclosure was resolved by ruling and agreement, and the landholder's application was dismissed.

    In dismissing the landholder's application, the Land Court determined that the landholder failed to demonstrate that the documents sought were "directly relevant" – that is, production of the documents sought tends to prove or disprove an allegation in issue and would materially benefit that party's case.

    The Court determined that it would not be appropriate to exercise its discretion to make an order having regard to the main purposes of the Rules and the factors outlined Adani Mining Pty Ltd and Anor v Pennings [2021] QSC 343.

    The Court found that the landholder's application lacked precision and failed to provide clear bases for the requests. The Court also accepted evidence from the Santos parties in respect of onerous compliance implications and excessive delay.

    Authors: Alex Buck, Senior Associate, Cooper Jones and Martin Doyle.
    __________________________________________________________​

    Land Court clarifies when land is "used" as a mine

    Summary

    • In Citigold Corporation Limited v Charters Towers Regional Council [2025] QLC 27, the Land Court held that, at least for the purposes of ratings calculation by local governments, land is "used" as a mine when the mine is in care and maintenance. This is the case even when the care and maintenance activities are undertaken intermittently by a single person.
    • The Court accepted that there should be a "temporal limit" when categorising land – it is the (intended) use during the rating period that is relevant, not past or future uses outside that period.
    • Following dismissal of the appeal, the Court ordered Citigold to pay the Council's costs.

    Mining company appealed land categorisation for inoperative mine

    Citigold Corporation Limited holds mining leases over multiple land parcels within the Charters Towers Region in North Queensland. These parcels were once part of a mine which ceased operations in 2015. Citigold aims to reopen operations at this mine but says there are considerable hurdles to overcome before that can happen.

    Charters Towers Regional Council decided to categorise the relevant parcels for the purpose of levying rates. Citigold objected to the Council's categorisation, arguing a different category (with much lower rates payable) should apply.

    Citigold eventually appealed the categorisation to the Land Court under (section 92 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld)). The Land Court dismissed the appeal. The Court considered a number of issues in relation to land categorisation, but its decision ultimately turned on what it means to "use" a parcel of land as a mine.

    The Council categorises parcels for determining rates based on categories defined in its Revenue Statement for a rating period. It had categorised the relevant parcels as Category 20, which was defined in the relevant Revenue Statement as land that:

    • is a mining lease with a rateable valuation greater than $14,999, which forms part of a Mine with less than 25 employees and/or contractors, or
    • has a rateable valuation greater than $14,999 that is used or is capable of being used in whole or in part, for the purpose of a Mine or quarry with less than 25 employees and/or contractors.

    A key element of the definition was the concept of a "Mine", which included land the subject of a mining lease that "was used, is used, or intended to be used" as a mine or for purposes ancillary or associated with mining.

    Citigold objected and argued that the land should have instead been categorised under Category 21, a lower catch-all category for mining leases. The key issue was the interpretation of the definition of "Mine".

    One of the first issues for determination was whether a local government could look at past or future uses outside the rating period when considering ratings categorisation. The Council had noted that the definition of Mine refers to land which "was used, is used or intended to be used" and argued this allowed it to consider uses beyond the immediate rating period.

    The Court held that this was wrong, and that the relevant use was the use undertaken across the relevant rating period. The question was thus whether the land "was used, is used or intended to be used" as a Mine within the rating period.

    The Court held that land was "used as" a Mine when activities were being undertaken as part of care and maintenance of the site, in pursuance of a later reopening of the mine.

    The Court adopted the High Court's reasoning in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Broken Hill South Limited (1941) 65 CLR 150. In that case, the High Court determined that even limited activities related to maintenance, protection and safety of a mine were still "mining operations" where a "practical or real connection can be discerned between the work done at the mine and the eventual extraction of ore".

    The Court also noted that a parcel of land that sits idle, with no activities for care or management is not typically considered in "care and maintenance" (see McClymont v Solar Silicon Resources Group Pte Ltd [2016] QLC 67).

    The Court then held that the evidence supported a conclusion that the land was in fact being used as part of "care and maintenance".

    Citigold's managing director had expressly said in evidence that the mine was in "care and maintenance." However, Citigold argued that no activities had actually occurred on the land in the relevant period, demonstrated by the fact that the parcels were in "significant disrepair."

    However, there was evidence of work being done. The Court heard evidence from Citigold that a single person, not employed by Citigold, would intermittently monitor the site on Citigold's behalf. The Court held that this alone was enough to demonstrate that Citigold was undertaking monitoring of the mine, which amounted to care and maintenance. Further, as Citigold had already expressed its intention to reopen, the Court held this monitoring was in pursuance of that later reopening.

    Citigold also made other arguments in relation to the definition of Category 20. In summary, the Court held that:

    • the term "mining lease" in Category 20(a) included multiple mining leases – so the valuation of multiple mining leases can be combined for a single parcel of land; and
    • "employees" includes management personnel such as Chief Financial Officers, and "contractors" includes consultants.

    Costs

    Following dismissal of the appeal, the Council applied for its costs. In Citigold Corporation Limited v Charters Towers Regional Council (No 2) [2025] QLC 30, the Court ordered Citigold to pay the Council's costs of and incidental to the appeal, on the standard basis and at the District Court scale.

    The Court acknowledged that, while the appeal was not brought as a test case, it did engage a matter of principle – namely, whether very minimal care and maintenance was sufficient to enliven the concept of a "Mine".

    However, the Court held that Citigold had brought the appeal for its own commercial reasons (success would have resulted in a material reduction of approximately 55% in the rates payable), and that the Council was wholly successful in defending its decision. The Court found there was no disentitling conduct on the part of the Council, and that costs should follow the event.

    Keep an eye on your rating categorisation during care and maintenance

    This decision is an important reminder to mining companies to carefully consider their activities during periods where full operations at the mine have ceased. Based on this decision, anything more than total abandonment is sufficient for a mine to be considered operational for the purpose of ratings categorisation. Mining companies should also be aware that an unsuccessful challenge to categorisation may result in an adverse costs order.

    These considerations should be factored in when considering potential rates and other charges which may be levied during periods of reduced operations.

    Authors: Leanne Mahly, Lawyer and Alex Buck, Senior Associate.

    Want to know more?

    The information provided is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all developments in the law and practice, or to cover all aspects of those referred to.
    Readers should take legal advice before applying it to specific issues or transactions.

    Key Contacts