Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson & Ors - [2017] HCATrans 64

[2017] HCATrans 064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P59 of 2016

B e t w e e n -
FORREST & FORREST PTY LTD
Appellant
and
STEPHEN McKENZIE WILSON
First Respondent
YARRI MINING PTY LTD
Second Respondent
QUARRY PARK PTY LTD
Third Respondent
ONSLOW RESOURCES LTD
Fourth Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
BELL J
GAGELER J
KEANE J
NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 31 MARCH 2017, AT 10.00 AM

____________________

MR A.J. MYERS, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR A.J. PAPAMATHEOS, for the appellant. (instructed by Mizen & Mizen)

MR P.D. QUINLAN, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of Western Australia: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR T.C. RUSSELL, for the Attorney‑General for Western Australia as amicus curiae. (instructed by State Solicitor’s Office (WA))

KIEFEL CJ: Thank you. The first to fourth respondents have filed an appearance submitting to any order the Court may make save as to costs and the second to fourth respondents have filed written submissions on that question. Yes, Mr Myers.

MR MYERS: Thank you, your Honours. The oral submissions I will make this morning, I say with a high level of confidence, will be short in supplement to our written submissions. Could I identify for your Honours the provisions of the Mining Act 1978 (WA), as amended, with which the Court is concerned. If your Honours have a copy of the Act, section 71 deals with the grant of a mining lease and then section 74 tells us how a mining lease is to be applied for:

(1) An application for a mining lease –

(a) shall be in the prescribed form –

. . .

(ca) shall be accompanied by –

(i) a mining proposal; or

(ii)a statement in accordance with subsection (1a) and a mineralisation report prepared by a qualified person –

“Mineralisation report” is defined in subsection (7), and one can look at it briefly there. There are copies of the relevant mineralisation reports in the appeal book; they are the first two documents and they run for about the first 50 pages, and the definition of a “qualified person” is also in subsection (7). Subsection (1A) which deals with the content of the statement, is to be noted. Then section 74A is of considerable importance.

KEANE J: Mr Myers, could I just interrupt you for a moment. The statement referred to in (1a), was there one?

MR MYERS: The evidence is not clear about that. If there was one, it was late. Yes, my learned junior, who appeared below, has said there was no evidence that it was lodged.

KEANE J: So, there was no evidence that it was lodged?

MR MYERS: No evidence it was lodged.

GAGELER J: But your complaint has only ever been about the absence of the mineralisation report.

MR MYERS: It is, it is, although it…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v Wilson & Ors and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] HCATrans 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning a dispute over the ownership of a pastoral lease and associated land. The primary parties were Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd, the appellant, and the respondents, who were the executors and beneficiaries of the estate of the late Mr. Wilson. The dispute centred on whether the late Mr. Wilson had acquired a beneficial interest in the pastoral lease, known as Minderoo Station, and its associated land, despite the legal title being held by Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd.

The High Court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the late Mr. Wilson had acquired a beneficial interest in the pastoral lease and associated land. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the evidence supported a conclusion that the parties had entered into an agreement or arrangement that gave rise to a constructive trust or a resulting trust over the property in favour of Mr. Wilson. This involved an examination of the conduct of the parties, the nature of their relationship, and the terms of any alleged agreement.

The Court analysed the evidence in light of established principles of trust law. It considered whether the circumstances demonstrated an intention to create a trust, or whether the acquisition of the property by Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd was on behalf of Mr. Wilson. The High Court ultimately found that the evidence did not establish the necessary elements for the imposition of a constructive or resulting trust. The Court concluded that the primary judge had misapprehended the evidence and applied incorrect legal principles in finding that Mr. Wilson had acquired a beneficial interest.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The Court ordered that the proceedings in the Supreme Court be dismissed.

Orders