Pilbara railway access dispute routed to court
Fortescue has spent the past five months jousting with Brockman Mining, which has sought permission to export iron ore along Fortescue's railway under third-party access laws.
Western Australia's economic regulator recently gave the two companies a price range within which to negotiate a fair price for rail access, but Fortescue has refused to negotiate, and announced on Monday it would instead challenge the price range in the Supreme Court.
The court action has been officially lodged by Fortescue's wholly owned subsidiary The Pilbara Infrastructure, which holds the port and rail assets.
The court action will not stop at debating the price range, with Fortescue also set to challenge Brockman's right to even launch a claim for access.
Fortescue has long accused the junior miner of being ill-equipped to develop its iron ore mine, and it claimed on Monday that Brockman would struggle to pay its way onto the line. "The Pilbara Infrastructure cannot be expected to subsidise third-party projects that are uneconomic," Fortescue company secretary Mark Thomas said.
Fortescue spent much of its first decade in the courts unsuccessfully seeking access to the Pilbara railways of BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.
The iron ore exporter insists its stance against Brockman's proposal is not hypocritical, stressing it is "actively negotiating" with "other potential third parties that have commercially viable projects".
A spokeswoman for Brockman said the court bid was not unexpected. "The matters will now be resolved before the Supreme Court in the usual manner and we are prepared to defend our access proposal," she said.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
The dispute centres on Brockman Mining seeking permission to export iron ore along Fortescue's Pilbara railway under third-party access laws. Western Australia's economic regulator gave a price range for rail access, but Fortescue has refused to negotiate and has taken the matter to the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
Fortescue's wholly owned subsidiary, The Pilbara Infrastructure — which holds Fortescue's port and rail assets — officially lodged the court action. The challenge has been filed in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
Fortescue has refused to negotiate within the regulator's price range and announced it will challenge that range in the Supreme Court. The company also argues it should not be expected to subsidise third-party projects it considers uneconomic.
According to the article, Fortescue will not only contest the regulator's price range but also challenge Brockman Mining's right to even launch a claim for access to the railway.
A spokeswoman for Brockman said the court bid was not unexpected and that Brockman is prepared to defend its access proposal in the Supreme Court.
The article states that Brockman sought permission to use Fortescue's railway under third-party access laws, meaning Brockman is pursuing legal entitlement to use another company's rail infrastructure to export iron ore.
Yes. The article notes Fortescue spent much of its first decade in the courts unsuccessfully seeking access to the Pilbara railways owned by BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.
The article describes an active legal dispute over rail access and pricing that has been taken to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. It does not report any immediate operational or financial impacts, so investors who follow Fortescue or Brockman may want to monitor court developments and official company statements for updates.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
