Company subsidiary Coal Mines Australia paid the state government $90 million for the five-year exploration licence 6505 in the Liverpool Plains back in 2006, and the Mining Act gives a licence holder exploration rights on private property.

But a previous decision by the state’s Mining Warden was challenged by Mr and Mrs Brown along with Mr and Mrs Alcorn on the basis of jurisdiction.

As both families had mortgages, Judge Monika Schmidt found the banks were also landholders over the concerned properties and the company did not consult or give the banks notice to access the land.

“His Honour [Mining Warden] did contemplate that the mortgagees might have an interest in the conditions on which access to the land was granted,” she said.

“The Mining Act itself recognises that such an interest might exist, given that the definition of landholder includes mortgagees.

“His Honour did not consider that the concerns lying at the heart of the dispute between the parties, namely conditions minimising the risk of contamination and damage to the land which provides the security for the funds advanced by the mortgagees to the plaintiffs, might also be of concern to the mortgagees.”

The judge said the company accepted that without an access arrangement being reached with the mortgagees, it could not gain access to the land.

Schmidt consequently quashed and set aside the previous determinations relating to the case and ordered the company to bear the plantiffs’ costs of the proceedings.

The landmark case draws attention to oversights in the Mining Act, while the company was not pleased with the lateness of the legal action.

“Ambush and surprise in litigation is, of course, always to be discouraged,” Schmidt said.

“The management practices of all courts are nowadays directed to ensuring that this does not occur.

“Given, however, the difficulties of construction of the legislation which it has been necessary to resolve, the High Court’s current view of jurisdictional error, and the errors revealed in the Mining Warden's decision, it would be unjust to refuse the relief here sought, notwithstanding inconvenience which may result.”

The Brown family’s property covers 1087 hectares and the crop farmers held concerns about the potential puncturing and depressurisation of aquifers, contamination of the aquifers and the soil along with a potential loss of opportunity to obtain organic certification.

The Alcorn family’s property covered 590ha and the cattle farmers were particularly concerned about the potential contamination of a lagoon and the risk of cattle being poisoned or their meat contaminated.