Global Doctor Ltd v Hodgkinson - [2003] WASCA 119

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: GLOBAL DOCTOR LTD -v- HODGKINSON & ANOR [2003] WASCA 119

CORAM: BARKER J

HEARD: 25 FEBRUARY 2003

DELIVERED : 12 JUNE 2003

FILE NO/S: SJA 1097 of 2002

BETWEEN: GLOBAL DOCTOR LTD
Appellant
AND
CRAIG IAN HODGKINSON
First Respondent
MINISTER FOR STATE DEVELOPMENT
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Mining Act 1978 (WA) - Appeal - Jurisdiction of Warden's Court to grant declaratory relief in relation to registration of Form 5 expenditure reports after prescribed date - Whether proceedings in respect of a "right" in, under or in relation to a mining tenement or purported mining tenement - Whether proceedings relating to a matter in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred under a provision of the Act on the Warden - Whether jurisdiction to make consequential order to amend register

Legislation:

Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 82, s 98, s 99, s 100, s 132(1), s 147

Mining Regulations1981 (WA), reg 32, reg 106(1)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 16(1)(d), s 25(c)

Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA), O 18 r 16

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr A J N Aristei
First Respondent           :     Mr M P Workman
Second Respondent       :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Carles Solicitors
First Respondent           :     Michael Workman
Second Respondent       :     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Commercial Developments Pty Ltd v Mercantile Mutual Insurance Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 208
Commercial Properties Pty Ltd v Italo Nominees Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 7427; 16 December 1988
Commonwealth v Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd (1972) 126 CLR 297
Hodgkinson v Global Doctor Ltd and Minister for State Development [2002] WAMW 11
Nova Resources NL v French (1995) 12 WAR 50
O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Ross‑Jones; Ex parte Green (1984) 156 CLR 185
R v Warden P M Heaney SM; Ex parte Flint v Nexus Minerals NL, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970065; 26 February 1997
Re His Worship Calder SM; Ex parte Gardner (1999) 20 WAR 525
Re Malley; Ex parte Gardner [2001] WASCA 29

Case(s) also cited:

De Vries v Smallridge [1928] 1 KB 482
Evdo v Myer (2001) 79 SASR 9
Hondros & Tholet v Chesson [1981] WAR 146
International Oil Lease Service Corp v Australian Energy Limited (1991) 2 Qd R 166
Smith v Liebig (1926) 26 WALR 10
Smith v Smith (1925) 2 KB 144

BARKER J:

Introduction

At all material times Global Doctor Ltd (the appellant) was the holder of three mining leases pursuant to the Mining Act 1978 (WA). On 14 November 2001, the respondent (as plaintiff) filed three plaints under the Mining Act for hearing by a Warden in open court seeking the forfeiture of each of the mining leases. Each plaint alleged non‑compliance with the expenditure covenant or condition of the mining lease.
On 7 December 2001,…

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 Global Doctor Ltd v Hodgkinson 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: [2003] WASCA 119
Decision Date: 12 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Global Doctor Ltd sought to challenge the decision of the Warden under the Mining Act 1978 (WA) regarding the registration of certain Form 5 expenditure reports. The dispute centred on the Warden's refusal to accept the reports for registration after the prescribed deadline, and Global Doctor Ltd's contention that the Warden had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief and to amend the register of mining tenements to reflect the proper registration of these reports. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Warden's Court had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in relation to the registration of the Form 5 expenditure reports after the prescribed date, and if so, whether the proceedings related to a "right" in, under or in relation to a mining tenement or purported mining tenement. The court was also required to determine whether the proceedings related to a matter in respect of which jurisdiction was conferred under a provision of the Mining Act on the Warden, and whether the court had jurisdiction to make a consequential order to amend the register.

The Supreme Court found that the Warden's Court did have jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief in relation to the registration of the Form 5 expenditure reports. The court held that the proceedings did relate to a "right" in, under or in relation to a mining tenement or purported mining tenement, and that the jurisdiction to make a consequential order to amend the register was conferred by the Mining Act. The court determined that the Warden had the authority to make the consequential order, and that the proceedings were within the jurisdiction of the Warden's Court.

The final orders of the court were that the Warden's decision to refuse registration of the Form 5 expenditure reports be quashed, and that the Warden be directed to accept the reports for registration. The court also ordered that the register of mining tenements be amended to reflect the proper registration of these reports.

Orders