Moffat v Sheppard

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which itself had heard an appeal from a District Court Judge who had reviewed decisions from a Warden's Court. The dispute concerned an oral licence to mine on "tribute" granted by the appellants, Moffat and Alexander, to the respondents, Arthur and Sydney Sheppard. The appellants sought possession of the mining tenement, alleging revocation of the licence and breaches of its terms.

The legal issues before the High Court included whether the oral licence to mine on tribute was revocable, whether it had been effectively revoked, and whether the licence was personal to Arthur Sheppard or permitted the employment of others. Further questions arose regarding the number of men that could be employed and whether work on Sundays was permissible under the licence, as well as whether Alexander had sanctioned the grant of the licence by Moffat.

The High Court considered the common law principles governing licences, particularly the distinction between revocable licences and irrevocable licences coupled with a grant, and the role of equity in enforcing specific performance of oral agreements concerning interests in land. The Court found that the licence, being an oral grant of a profit à prendre, was revocable at common law unless equity would intervene. However, the District Court Judge's findings of fact indicated that the licensees had not acted in a way that would warrant equitable intervention, having expended only what was necessary for immediate extraction and having employed methods and appliances worthless for future operations. Furthermore, the licensees were found to be in breach of the alleged contract by taking material they were not entitled to, disentitling them to equitable relief. The Court also determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the licence was revoked on 2 May 1907, when operations were ordered to stop and actions were subsequently commenced. The licence was held not to be personal to Arthur Sheppard, but the Court upheld the District Court Judge's finding that the licence implied a reasonable number of men, which he determined to be ten, and that work on Sundays was not contemplated.

The High Court varied the judgment of the Supreme Court. It restored the findings of the District Court Judge regarding the revocability of the licence, the revocation on 2 May 1907, the limitation on the number of men employed (ten), and the prohibition of Sunday work. However, it disagreed with the Supreme Court's finding that the respondents were entitled to all proceeds from the mine before 2 May 1907, reinstating the District Court's order that proceeds obtained before that date were subject to a 5% royalty and that ore obtained by working more than ten men or on Sundays was also subject to royalty less deductions. The Court also found sufficient evidence to conclude that Alexander had sanctioned the grant of the licence, primarily based on the outcome of an arbitration proceeding.