Key takeaways
No statutory ‘five-year’ requirement for section 58 statements.
Applicants must still provide sufficient detail in section 58 statements to satisfy the requirements of the Mining Act 1978.
The Supreme Court’s decision restores certainty for exploration licence applicants and removes the stricter approach previously applied by the Warden’s Court.
A long-awaited decision from the Supreme Court of Western Australia has resolved a significant issue affecting the state’s mining industry. In Richmond v Warden Thomas McPhee [2025] WASC 387 (Richmond), the Court ruled that exploration licence applicants are not required to include a five-year work program and budget in the section 58 statement that accompanies their application.
The background
Since 2022, a line of authority in the Warden’s Court has interpreted section 58 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act) to require exploration licence applications to include a detailed proposed program of work and budget covering the full five-year term of the licence (the five-year requirement). This interpretation, first established in True Fella Pty Ltd v Pantoro South Pty Ltd [2022] WAMW 19, has caused widespread disruption across the Western Australian mining industry.
Applications that may otherwise have been considered compliant were rejected, and many matters before the Warden stayed pending clarification of the legal position.
That clarification arrived on 19 September 2025, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Richmond.
The Case
Richmond concerned a judicial review of decisions made by the Warden’s Court to reject exploration licence applications on the basis that the five-year requirement was not observed. The Warden concluded this omission rendered the section 58 statements non-compliant, and therefore that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the applications.
In reviewing those findings, the Supreme Court held that the Warden had made a jurisdictional error. The Supreme Court confirmed there was no express or implied requirement in section 58 that supported the five-year requirement.
Key findings from the Supreme Court
The Court’s reasoning focused on both the text of the Mining Act and the practical realities of mineral exploration:
- No five-year requirement: Section 58(1)(b) does not expressly require that the work program and expenditure be specified over a five-year period. The Court found that the statutory language focuses on the nature of the work and expenditure, not the duration.
- Inherent uncertainty in exploration: Exploration activities are by nature uncertain and speculative. Requiring a detailed five-year forecast was considered both impractical and inconsistent with the legislative framework.
- Staged programs permissible: The Court accepted that a valid section 58 statement may outline a staged or conditional program of work, where subsequent activities depend on the result of earlier stages.
Practical implications
Richmond will come as a relief to exploration companies who have been operating under the stricter regime imposed by the Warden’s Court in recent years.
That said, the decision does not remove the need for careful drafting of section 58 statements. The Court confirmed that applicants must still:
- specify their proposed work with sufficient clarity and detail; and
- clearly identify the technical and financial resources available to carry out that work.
Failure to meet these core requirements may still result in findings of non-compliance and expose applicants to a higher risk of objections and legal challenges.