Legal Research
Cases
Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 4]

Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 4]

Link copied

Case Copied 30 June 2010 66 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: HUGHES -v- ST BARBARA MINES LTD [No 4] [2010] WASC 160

CORAM: KENNETH MARTIN J

HEARD: 2-5 JUNE, 8-12 JUNE & 17-19 JUNE 2009

DELIVERED : 30 JUNE 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 1913 of 2002

BETWEEN: BRYAN KEVIN HUGHES (as Trustee of the KINGSTREAM STEEL CREDITORS TRUST)
Plaintiff
AND
ST BARBARA MINES LTD (ACN 009 165 066)
First Defendant
ZYGOT LTD (ACN 009 115 664)
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Mining tenement - Exploration licence - Mandatory surrender of areas - Application for mining lease - Non transferability of mere expectancy

Deeds - Construction - Surrounding circumstances - Use of descriptive term

Deeds - Agreement - Rectification - Continuing common intention - Unilateral mistake

Contract - Inferred terms - Implied terms - Business efficacy - Criteria for implication

Equitable (promissory) estoppel - Conventional estoppel to establish contract in which terms contended to be breached - Need for reliance and detriment to be shown - Limitation issues arising

Duty of care - Negligence - Obligations sought to be imposed beyond contract

Application for leave to amend statement of claim during trial - Decision reserved - Forensic prejudice to defendants in allowing amendments

Prior amendments - Rules of the Supreme Court, O 21, r 5(1), r 5(2), r 5(5) - Dates for taking effect of causes of action introduced by amendments in October 2008 ascertained

Damages - Breach of contract - Admissibility or appropriateness of receipt of evidence as to events subsequent to a breach of contract in loss of opportunity claim for damages

Evidence - So-called rule in Jones v Dunkel invoked - Basis for invocation of rule where defendant does not call witnesses as to facts

Legislation:

Mining Act 1978 (WA)

Result:

Action dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr R M Smith SC & Mr T O Coyle
First Defendant             :     Mr C R C Newlinds SC & Mr I R Pike
Second Defendant         :     Mr C R C Newlinds SC & Mr I R Pike

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Lavan Legal
First Defendant             :     Tottle Partners
Second Defendant         :     Tottle Partners

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

Adelaide Petroleum NL v Poseidon Ltd (1990) 98 ALR 431
Alpha Wealth Financial Services Pty Ltd v Frankland River Olive Company Ltd [2008] WASCA 119; (2008) 66 ACSR 594
AON Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Astley v Austrust Ltd [1999] HCA 6; (1999) 197 CLR 1
Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] UKPC 10; [2009] 2 All ER 1127
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd [1973] HCA 36; (1973) 129 CLR 99
Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 604
Bwllfa & Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Company [1903] AC 426
Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410
Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24

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 Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 4] 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] WASC 160
Decision Date: 30 JUNE 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 4] involved a dispute regarding the mining tenement and the exploration licence held by St Barbara Mines Ltd. The plaintiff, Hughes, challenged the mandatory surrender of certain areas of the exploration licence by St Barbara Mines Ltd and sought an application for a mining lease. The court had to address the non-transferability of mere expectancy under deeds, the construction of surrounding circumstances, the use of descriptive terms, and the rectification of agreements due to unilateral mistakes. Additionally, the case explored inferred and implied terms in contracts, the criteria for implication, and equitable estoppel. The plaintiff also sought to establish a conventional estoppel to enforce a contract and claimed breach of contract, including issues of reliance, detriment, and limitation.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of deeds, the rectification of agreements, the implications of promissory estoppel, and the criteria for implied terms. The court examined whether the terms contended to be breached could be inferred or implied and whether the plaintiff could establish an equitable estoppel. The court also considered whether the plaintiff had shown reliance and detriment necessary to enforce a conventional estoppel. Furthermore, the court evaluated the admissibility of evidence concerning events subsequent to a breach of contract in a loss of opportunity claim for damages. The court had to decide on the application for leave to amend the statement of claim during the trial, balancing the forensic prejudice to the defendants against the prior amendments and the rules of the Supreme Court.

The court reserved its decision on several key issues, including the application for leave to amend the statement of claim during the trial. It noted the forensic prejudice to the defendants in allowing amendments and considered the prior amendments and the relevant rules of the Supreme Court. The court also deliberated on the admissibility of evidence concerning events subsequent to a breach of contract in a loss of opportunity claim for damages, invoking the rule in Jones v Dunkel. The court had to determine the basis for invoking this rule where the defendant did not call witnesses as to the facts. The final orders of the court were reserved pending further deliberation on these complex and interrelated issues.

Orders