inaction arguement., page-34

I'm sure I've read somewhere that RIO's cheque was returned. That is, it was NOT BANKED. Can a banked cheque be returned? Anyone who has seen the film Brazil will remember the problem with the cheque.
Anyone know the truth about what happened to RIO's cheque? For USA readers, cheque means check.

Anyone know of a case where a lease fell vacant and then it is re-issued to a new leaseholder, yet the lease was subsequently reversed by a courts depite the applicant doing everything correctly when applying for the mining lease? As so far there appears no dispute over or questioning of CAZ's application.

Can any court make a decision based on s.111 as if the Court was the Minister? s.111 gives the consideration of what is the Public Interest to the Minister.

So, if there is an appeal against the Minister's decision under s.111, then can a court overrule the Minister's decision, assuming the Minister did everything right proceurally in coming to his decision?

That is, he makes his decision with perfect procedural correctness?

So, if a decision is made correctly, then surely it must stand. No?

I recall a case in the Land & Enviroment court (I think) where a community group challenged the Minister's decision on the apparent only grounds. That he did not fully consult the community on the issues, as required by law. So? The Court ordered him to repeat the whole process, correctly and he then goes and makes the same decision. It seems there's no right of appeal if performed in a/w the law. Being a Planning decision.

Is this the case under W.A. law, anyone?

After all, I'm quite sure "The Public Interest" hasn't and can't be defined in such a way so that the definition can hold up in every case.

So, surely Carpy's decision has to have an element of the political involved as part of the public interest test/assessment? And if this is the case,then do the courts anywhere in Australia ever get involved with over-turning a decision on the political aspects of a Minister's ecision?

If Courts do, then doesn't that become a breach of the separation of powers?

So, I assume s.111 does allow the Minister to consider the political aspects of an appeal under s.111 and for these to form part of the arguements put to him and considered by him when arriving at his decision?

If so, then can RIO ONLY appeal on procedural grounds and not against the actual decision?

And if, after due process, RIO decides there are aspects that were not considered because they were overlooked by them (RIO), then stiff chese RIO, or whoever finds themselves in such a position. Except I imagine th eother side has engaged in fraud in its submissions.

And is this not the case, especially after the process allows each side to have 1 right of reply the the other's initial submission. And I assume both sides 2nd submission (in reply) is not allowed to contain new material or points for consideration. Though I read RIO wanted to put a 3rd submission. But it was disallowed. Anyone confirm that's true?