Barwick C.J.(1), Menzies(2), Walsh(3), Gibbs(4) and Stephen(5) JJ.
CATCHWORDS
Mines and Minerals (W.A.) - Mineral claims over Crown lands - Whether "land" – Oral agreement between applicants for mineral claims for pooling of claims and sharing of aggregate interests in specified proportions and for grant of options by some applicants to purchase their interests – Whether enforceable in absence of writing – Property Law Act 1969 (W.A.), ss. 7 "land"*, 34 (1)** – Statute of Frauds 1677 (Imp.), s. 4*** – Mining Act 1904–1971 (W.A.), ss. 3 "claim"****, 26 (1), 31, 273*****, 287. Real Property – Land – Mineral claims on Crown lands (W.A.) – Property Law Act 1969 (W.A.), s. 7 "land" – Statute of Frauds 1677 (Imp.), s. 4.
* Section 7 of the Property Law Act 1969 (W.A.) provides : "In this Act unless the contrary intention appears - . . . "land" includes land of any tenure and mines and minerals whether or not they are held apart from the surface of the land . . . "mines and minerals" include any strata or seam of minerals or substances in or under any land and the right to work and get the minerals and substances ; . . . "
** Section 34 (1) of the Property Law Act 1969 (W.A.) provides : "Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in this Act with respect to the creation of interests in land by parol -
(a) no interest in land is capable of being created or disposed of except by writing signed by the person creating or conveying the interest, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing, or by will, or by operation of law ;
(b) a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein shall be manifested and proved by writing signed by a person who is able to declare the trust or by his will ;
(c) a disposition of an equitable interest or trust subsisting at the time of the disposition shall be in writing signed by the person disposing of the interest, or by his agent thereunto lawfully authorised in writing or by will."
*** Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677 (Imp.) provides : " . . . no action shall be brought whereby to charge . . . any person . . . upon any contract or sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them . . . unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized."
**** By section 3 of the Mining Act 1904-1971 (W.A.) "Claim" is defined as "the portion of…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Adamson v Hayes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Adamson v Hayes [1973] HCA 6
Case
[1973] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Adamson, and the respondent, Hayes, concerning the ownership of a pastoral property. The central issue revolved around the interpretation and effect of a written agreement for the sale of the property, and whether certain conditions precedent to the completion of the sale had been satisfied.
The court was required to determine whether the agreement for sale had been effectively terminated by the vendor, Hayes, due to the purchaser's alleged failure to comply with its terms. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the purchaser, Adamson, had made a sufficient deposit and whether the vendor had validly exercised its right to rescind the contract. The interpretation of the contractual clauses relating to the deposit and the time for its payment was critical to this determination.
The High Court held that the vendor had not validly rescinded the contract. The court reasoned that the deposit paid by the purchaser was sufficient and that the vendor's purported termination was premature and based on a misinterpretation of the contractual obligations. The principles of contract law regarding the essentiality of terms and the proper exercise of a right of rescission were applied. The court found that the purchaser had substantially complied with the terms of the agreement, and therefore, the contract remained on foot.