Forster v The King

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of Western Australia regarding the forfeiture of a gold mining lease. The appellant, Phoebe Blanche Forster, held shares in a lease granted under the *Mining Act 1895* (W.A.), which was subsequently subject to the *Mining Act 1904* (W.A.). The dispute arose when the lease was declared forfeited by the Governor in Council for breach of labour conditions, without the appellant being served with notice of any proceedings.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the forfeiture of the lease was lawful, particularly in light of the procedural requirements stipulated in the *Mining Act 1904*. Specifically, the Court had to determine the interplay between section 97, which grants the Governor power to declare a lease void, and other sections of the Act, including section 96 (notice requirements for certain breaches), section 99 et seq. (proceedings initiated by a miner for forfeiture), and section 107 (exemption from forfeiture due to a general strike). The appellant argued that the forfeiture was invalid due to a lack of notice and procedural irregularities, while the respondent contended that the forfeiture was validly exercised under the Governor's executive power.

The High Court, by majority, held that the lease was properly forfeited. Griffith C.J. and Barton J. reasoned that section 96 impliedly dispensed with notice for breaches of labour conditions, and that the Governor's power under section 97 was not confined to proceedings initiated under section 99. They further concluded that section 107, concerning general strikes, applied only to proceedings commenced under section 99 and not to a forfeiture declared directly by the Governor under section 97. Higgins J. concurred on the ground that the appellant had not alleged inability to comply with labour conditions due to a general strike, as contemplated by section 107. However, he also expressed the view that section 107, by its language, applied to all forfeitures for non-compliance with labour conditions, implying a right for the lessee to demand an inquiry before the Warden in such circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.