Karetsian v Karetsian

[2016] SAWC 1

Wardens Court of South Australia

(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)

KARETSIAN v KARETSIAN

[2016] SAWC 1

Judgment of Senior Warden Dr Cannon (ex tempore)

11 April 2016

ENERGY AND RESOURCES - MINERALS - COURTS OR TRIBUNALS EXERCISING JURISDICTION IN MINING MATTERS - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WARDEN'S COURT

Opal Mining Partnership Dispute

KARETSIAN v KARETSIAN
[2016] SAWC 1

1. This was an ex tempore judgment and I have edited it as to syntax and grammar.  This is a claim for partnership proceeds from an opal mining partnership.  I have noted in another case today that these partnerships are loose contractual arrangements and not a formal partnership recognised under the Partnership Act 1891.  Tony Karetsian was in partnership with his brother John and Jimmy.  Tony was paying some expenses. He was entitled to 20% of proceeds off the top.

2. They were trying to sell some opals from the partnership shortly before Christmas  Tony thought the parcel was worth $10,000 or more. He went, in company with Jimmy, to a Chinese buyer who offered $7,000. He refused to accept that.  He then offered to pay $2,000 to Jimmy and his brother, John, to meet their expenses for Christmas to take the pressure off selling it.

3. Jimmy was with Tony when that transaction occurred. He said that after that they went to see Locksley, an opal valuer, and he said ‘You won’t get that price if you want to sell it before Christmas.’ He had a look at it, he classed it and said it was worth - ‘If you get $4000 or more perhaps more sell it, that’s all it’s worth.’

4. Jimmy offered to sell it to Tony for $6,000 but Tony would not accept that.

5. They went to see Helmut; he said it was worth 4,000. Jimmy then took Tony to buy some alcohol at the Miners Store.  Mrs Wong was there and she came to the dugout to look at the opal and things did not go particularly well there. Tony lost his temper.  Then they sold the opal for a total of $5300, that is $4500 for the opal parcel and another $800 for the chips and they gave him $1,100 which is slightly more than the 20% to which he was entitled (5,300 x 0.2 = 1,060).

6. He complains that he has been short-changed because the opal was worth more than that. The opal, at that time, in the market was worth absolutely top dollar $7000 but he declined to accept that offer. Other people in town would not offer more than $4500.

7. The other partners offered to let him have the opal for a price under what he thought it was worth and he declined that. He ended the conversation by going into a rage and smashed a chair and they went and got a price for it that was a reasonable price and they have accounted for that.

8. They have done everything they were obliged to do. The claim is dismissed.

9. I make it clear that there is nothing to stop John Karetsian from continuing to mine his claim. I note that both John Karetsian and Jimmy are willing to resume a relationship with Tony if he wants. At the moment he does not want. I do not think there is anything else I need to say at this point.

   ADJOURNED 5.53 P.M.