Legal Research
Cases
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd

Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 1 December 1972 55 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McTiernan, Walsh, Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ.

FORSTER v. JODODEX AUST. PTY. LTD.

(1972) 127 CLR 421

1 December 1972

Mines and Minerals (N.S.W.)—Courts—Statutes

Mines and Minerals (N.S.W.)—Exploration licence—Grant of licence "from" specified day—When period commenced—Renewal—Application to be made not later than one month before expiry of licence or renewal—Whether clear month—Mining Act, 1906 (as amended) (N.S.W.), ss. 46 (3), 83B (13). Courts—Practice—Supreme Court (N.S.W.)—Equitable jurisdiction—Declaration of right—Extent of jurisdiction—Whether Mining Act, 1906 (N.S.W.) qualifies power to grant remedy—Equity Act, 1901 (as amended) (N.S.W.), s. 10.* Statutes—Construction and interpretation—Commencement of licence "from" specified day—When term commences—Renewal of licence—Application to be made "not later than one month before expiry" of licence or renewal—Whether clear month—Interpretation Act, 1897 (N.S.W.), s. 35 (ii).

Decisions

December 1.
The following written judgments were delivered : -
MCTIERNAN J. In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed. I concur in the reasons of Mason J. (at p426)

WALSH J. In the Supreme Court of New South Wales and on the hearing of this appeal, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Supreme Court in Equity had no jurisdiction under s. 10 of the Equity Act, 1901 (N.S.W.), as amended in 1965, to make declarations sought in the suit brought in that Court by the present respondent, Jododex Australia Pty. Ltd. (Jododex). I have no doubt that the Court had jurisdiction. I agree with the reasons given by Gibbs J. for rejecting the submissions of the appellant on this question. (at p427)

2. It was contended, also, that in the circumstances of the case, a proper exercise of the discretion of the Court required it to decline to make any declaration. This question has caused me considerable difficulty. Applications had been made by the appellant for authorities to enter certain land. It became the duty of the warden to deal with those applications in accordance with s. 50 and other relevant provisions of the Mining Act, 1906 (N.S.W.), as amended, (the Act). The warden had initiated an inquiry into the matter of the applications and Jododex had notice of that inquiry. It had become owner of part of the subject land, as well as being the holder of an exploration license, the validity of which is now in contest between the parties. In my opinion, there is no reason to doubt that in the proceedings before the warden, if they had continued without any intervention by the Supreme Court, Jododex would have had the opportunity to raise and to debate the question whether the provisions of the Act precluded the grant of the authorities to enter, by reason of the fact that Jododex was, as it claimed, the holder of an exploration license. validly granted to it and validly renewed. (at p427)

3. In my opinion, when a special tribunal is appointed by a statute to deal with matters arising under its provisions and to determine disputes concerning the granting of rights or privileges which are dependent entirely upon the…

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 Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd 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: [1972] HCA 61
Decision Date: 1 December 1972

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a dispute between Forster and Jododex Australia Pty Ltd. The core of the disagreement concerned the interpretation and enforceability of a contract for the sale of land, specifically relating to the vendor's obligations concerning the subdivision of the land and the purchaser's right to terminate the agreement.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the vendor had breached its contractual obligations by failing to take all reasonable steps to obtain the necessary approvals for subdivision within the stipulated timeframe, and consequently, whether the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract on that basis. The court also had to determine the proper construction of the contractual clauses governing the subdivision process and the consequences of the vendor's inaction.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the vendor had indeed failed to fulfil its contractual duty to take all reasonable steps to obtain the approvals for subdivision. The judges reasoned that the vendor's passive approach and lack of proactive engagement with the relevant authorities constituted a breach of its obligations under the contract. They applied the principle that a contractual obligation to take reasonable steps requires more than mere passive waiting; it necessitates active and diligent efforts to achieve the contractual objective. The court found that the purchaser's right to terminate arose from this fundamental breach of the vendor's obligations.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the purchaser's right to terminate the contract and affirming the Supreme Court's decision.

Orders