A-G of the Commonwealth v Alinta Limited & Ors [2007] HCATrans 308 (15 June 2007)

Last Updated: 28 June 2007

Replacement Transcript

[2007] HCATrans 308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S207 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH

Applicant

and

ALINTA LIMITED

First Respondent

TREWAS PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent

TAKEOVERS PANEL

Third Respondent

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Fourth Respondent

AUSTRALIAN PIPELINE LIMITED (IN ITS CAPACITY AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF AUSTRALIAN PIPELINE TRUST)

Fifth Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S226 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

AUSTRALIAN PIPELINE LIMITED (IN ITS CAPACITY AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF AUSTRALIAN PIPELINE TRUST)

Applicant

and

ALINTA LIMITED

First Respondent

TREWAS PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent

TAKEOVERS PANEL

Third Respondent

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Fourth Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S245 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

ALINTA LIMITED

First Applicant

TREWAS PTY LIMITED

Second Applicant

ALINTA MERGECO LIMITED

Third Applicant

THE AUSTRALIAN GAS LIGHT COMPANY

Fourth Applicant

and

AUSTRALIAN PIPELINE LIMITED (IN ITS CAPACITY AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY OF AUSTRALIAN PIPELINE TRUST)

First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES & INVESTMENTS COMMISSION

Second Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 15 JUNE 2007, AT 9.57 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D.M.J. BENNETT, QC, Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia: If the Court pleases, in the first matter I appear for the applicant with my learned friend, MS M.A. PERRY, QC. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor Canberra (Barton) Office)

MR A.J. SULLIVAN, QC: Your Honour, in all three matters I appear for the Alinta interests. In the first two matters, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.K. KIRK, for the first and second respondents and in the third matter, I appear for the appellants with MR J.R.J. LOCKHART. (instructed by Blake Dawson Waldron)

MR P.M. WOOD: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS T.L. WONG, for the Australian Pipeline Limited which is the fifth respondent in the first matter, the applicant in the second matter and the first respondent in the third matter. (instructed by Chang, Pistilli & Simmons)

MS M.A. PERRY, QC: May it please the Court, I appear for the third respondent in the first and second matters, although it does not seek to make any oral submissions. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

GLEESON CJ: Thank you. As to matters No S207 and S226 of 2007 we would be assisted to hear first from those opposing the application.

MR SULLIVAN: Your Honour, as we have indicated in our written outline, we do regard this as the appropriate vehicle for special leave.

GLEESON CJ: The only question seems to come to this, Mr Sullivan, and that is what we should do with the third matter. Now, we can hear argument on the third matter, but a possible point of view is that a convenient way to deal with that would be to refer the special leave application to the Court that is dealing with the appeals in matters S207 and S226.

MR SULLIVAN: Your Honour, we would respectfully submit that would be a sensible outcome since we will be there anyway.

GLEESON CJ: Has anybody any contrary views on that? Since I think Mr Sullivan has indicated that he would want to rely on a notice of contention at any rate raising that issue there does not seem to be much to be gained from our canvassing the merits of that today.

MR BENNETT: Your Honour, our only procedural concern is this, that the matter is of course very urgent from the applicant’s point of view and we would not wish anything that happens in relation to any of the other appeals or applications to delay the date on which the matter is heard. That is our only concern.

GLEESON CJ: How long do people think the three matters, that is the two appeals and the application for special leave to appeal would take?

MR SULLIVAN: Your Honour, if it was confined to the matters in which the Commonwealth is involved, we would think it would be one day, plus, and we would think that if the extra – there are a few extra points raised in the third matter of construction, but we would be confident that that would probably only add an hour or perhaps two hours to that, so it would still finish well within two days, in our respectful submission.

GLEESON CJ: There would be some interveners, do you expect?

MR BENNETT: I do not know, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: We will allow two days for these cases and we will assume that counsel will agree between themselves on a division of time.

We will just check these orders, Mr Sullivan, but the orders of the Court are in matters S207 of 2007 and S226 of 2007 there will be a grant of special leave to appeal and in matter S245 of 2007 the application for special leave to appeal will be referred to a Full Court and the parties to the application should be ready to present argument as on an appeal.

MR SULLIVAN: If the Court pleases.

GLEESON CJ: We will adjourn for a short time to reconstitute.

AT 10.01 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED