Legal Research
Cases
High Court Bulletin

High Court Bulletin

Link copied

Case Copied 13 September 2010 38 min read

Contents

On this page

High Court Bulletin

Produced by the High Court of Australia Library

[2010] HCAB 8 (13 September 2010)

A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court’s original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated.

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August-September 2010 sittings.

Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales

High Court of Australia: [2010] HCA 27.

Judgment delivered: 25 August 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ.

Catchwords:

Mining — Ownership of minerals — Crown prerogative — Section 379 of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) ("the Act") preserved any Crown prerogative in respect of mines of gold and silver — Ore mined on appellants' lands contained intermingled gold and copper, incapable of being separately mined — Royalty payable under the Act on gold and copper — Section 284 of the Act required Minister to pay seven-eighths of royalty paid on minerals not owned by or reserved to Crown to mineral owner — Whether intermingled copper owned by or reserved to Crown — Whether common law prerogative rights, as received in colony of New South Wales, included Crown ownership of intermingled copper — Whether Royal Mines Act 1688 (1 Wm & Mar c 30) excluded "mines of copper" from scope of prerogative recognised in Case of Mines (1568) 1 Plowden 310 [75 ER 472] — Whether mines on appellants' lands were "mines of copper".
Words and phrases — "mine of copper", "mine of gold", "prerogative", "privately owned mineral", "publicly owned mineral", "royal mines".

Appealed from NSW SC (CA): [2009] NSWCA 174; (2009) 257 ALR 528.

Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia

High Court of Australia: [2010] HCA 28.

Judgment delivered: 1 September 2010.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure — Federal Court of Australia — Summary judgment — Application by respondent to dismiss proceedings summarily under s 31A(2) of Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) — Applicant claimed New South Wales legislation, said to be enacted pursuant to informal arrangements with Commonwealth, effected an acquisition of property other than on just terms — Applicant sought declarations that intergovernmental agreements, and Commonwealth legislation authorising them, were invalid under s 51(xxxi) of Constitution — Whether Court could be satisfied applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting proceeding — Effect of ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2009] HCA 51; (2009) 240 CLR 140, delivered after decisions below, on prospects of success.
Statutes — Construction — Summary judgment — “no reasonable prospect”.
Words and phrases — “no reasonable prospect”.

Appealed from FCA FC: [2009] FCAFC 38; (2009) 174 FCR 398; (2009) 254…

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 High Court Bulletin 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: [2010] HCAB 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales [2010] HCA 27 was heard by the High Court of Australia. The case involved a dispute over the ownership of minerals, specifically gold and copper, that were mined from the appellant's lands. The appellants sought a declaration that the intermingled copper was not owned by or reserved to the Crown, and that they were entitled to receive royalties for the minerals extracted from their land. The legal issues before the Court were whether the common law prerogative rights, as received in the colony of New South Wales, included Crown ownership of intermingled copper, and whether the Royal Mines Act 1688 excluded "mines of copper" from the scope of the prerogative recognised in the Case of Mines (1568). The Court found that the Crown did not own the intermingled copper and that the appellants were entitled to receive royalties for the minerals extracted from their land.

In the case of Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28, the High Court was asked to determine whether a Federal Court application for summary judgment could be granted where the applicant claimed that New South Wales legislation, enacted pursuant to informal arrangements with the Commonwealth, effected an acquisition of property other than on just terms. The applicant sought declarations that the intergovernmental agreements, and Commonwealth legislation authorising them, were invalid under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. The Court held that the Federal Court could not be satisfied that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding, and that the effect of ICM Agriculture Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2009] HCA 51 on the prospects of success was not dispositive.

Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29 involved a dispute over the validity of a charge over assets. The first respondent, Fortress, had obtained a fixed and floating charge over the assets of the second respondent, Octaviar. The charge secured all moneys payable under or in relation to certain documents, including such documents as Fortress and Octaviar agreed in writing. Fortress and Octaviar subsequently agreed by deed that the charge secured the liability of Octaviar to Fortress under a guarantee. The issue before the Court was whether the charge was void to the extent that it secured Octaviar's guarantee under section 266 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The Court found that the charge was not void, and that the deed did not effect a variation in the terms of the charge.

Orders