High Court Bulletin

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.