Re: Hamersley and BHP joint operations (was Re: Hamersley and NCC)

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <37809601.E1D79F16@do.not.spam.me> Ian Harvey <ian_harvey@do.not.spam.me> writes:
>From: Ian Harvey <ian_harvey@do.not.spam.me>
>Subject: Re: Hamersley and BHP joint operations (was Re: Hamersley and NCC)
>Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 19:24:49 +0800

>See the post that started this thread.  The access question was between
>Robe River (a North subsidiary) and Hamersley (Rio Tinto subsidiary).
>Robe wanted access to Hamersley's track.  BHP and Hancock were just
>interested parties from the sideline.  

>Also, from what I've read in the papers the court case was about whether
>the NCC had any say in the matter in the first place.  As the court
>decision was that the NCC had no say the NCC did not release its
>position on the matter - we may never know whether the NCC was for or
>against the access.  


Both the NCC & ACCC supported Robe in the attempt to declare Hamersleys line.
The federal Court found effectively that hamersleys rail line was in fact not 
a rail line at all but part of a total production process,and therefore not 
subject to Sect 44B of the TPA.

The Court ruling is available from http://www.fedcourt.gov.au. 
There are a couple of discussion papers on this issue on the NCCs Web site.

MD