Lady Ida, page-8

First, it must be stated that I am not a lawyer, so there is every chance I have misinterpreted the judgement, and if so, I would be happy to be corrected.
Hi @Yilgangie

Did you actually read the article and the link to the judgement? I think the outcome is clear, but in case you didn't, and for the benefit of others.

Link to the article:
https://bennettandco.com.au/industries/energy/what-you-need-to-know-when-applying-for-a-certificate-of-exemption-under-the-mining-act/

From that article, a link to the judgement:
https://jade.io/article/821971

In summary:
Result: Appeal dismissed

Screen shot from the document (important bit highlighted):


---------------------------

Other relevant bits (bold is mine):

Paragraph 5:
Siberia sought orders for judicial review of the warden's recommendation, contending that the warden erred in law in three respects. The primary judge accepted Siberia's contentions and quashed the warden's decision.[4] His Honour concluded that an 'other reason' pursuant to s 102(3) need not be of a different character to those in s 102(2). Further, while a reason for exemption must consist of matters that existed during the expenditure year, evidence of matters that occurred after the expenditure year may still be relevant. Indeed, by s 102(4), money spent and work done up to the time when the application is considered, including work done and money spent after the expenditure year, is a mandatory consideration. The judge also concluded that a reason for exemption need not justify the under‑expenditure (as opposed to justifying the grant of an exemption). Accordingly, the judge quashed the warden's decision and ordered that the application be reheard and determined according to law.

Paragraph 8:
For the reasons that follow, we would dismiss the appeal. In summary, in our respectful opinion, the construction of the Act adopted by the primary judge was correct, for the reasons given by his Honour. The judge did not err in the manner alleged by ground 1(a). To the contrary, his Honour adopted the construction the appellant advances by ground 1(a). We do not accept the construction of s 102(4) and s 102(3) advanced by grounds 1(b) and 2 respectively. These grounds each advance a construction of the relevant provision of the Act that seeks to impose a limitation on the general words of the relevant provision, when such a limitation is not sustained by the text, context or purpose of the provision or of the Act as a whole.

---------------------------

Hopefully this puts this topic to bed, at least until the time that an appeal is re-submitted to the warden and court.