Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 323 Hearing dates: 29 and 30 May 2014 Decision date: 16 September 2014 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [87];
Barrett JA at [104]Decision: Order that the parties bring in proposed short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons for judgment, with supporting submissions, in accordance with the following timetable:
(1) The appellant within 14 days of the date of this judgment;
(2) The respondents within a further 14 days;
(3) Any reply by the appellant within a further 14 days.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: CONTRACTS - construction and interpretation of contracts - appellant and respondents entered into written agreement whereby rights to certain temporary reserves were divided - whether royalties payable by appellant in respect of iron ore mined in defined area - whether ore mined by entities deriving title to relevant land through or under appellant - whether ore produced by appellant in association with others Legislation Cited: Mining Act 1904 (WA), ss 48, 276
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 12ACases Cited: Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 11; 247 CLR 149
Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; 149 CLR 337
Electricity Generation Corporation (t/as Verve Energy) v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] HCA 7; 88 ALJR 447
Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407; 76 NSWLR 603
Horsell International Pty Ltd v Divetwo Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 368
Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA [2014] NSWCA 184
Newey v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] NSWCA 319
Roussel-Uclaf v GD Searle & Co Ltd (No 2) [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep 225
Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 42; 16 BPR 30,353
Streller v Albury City Council [2013] NSWCA 348; Aust Torts Reports 82-146
Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O'Brien [1990] HCA 8; 169 CLR 332
Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 45; 86 ALJR 1Texts Cited: Lewison and Hughes, The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia, (2012, Lawbook Co) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (First Respondent)
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (First Cross-Respondent)
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
N J Young QC/M J Darke/Q Rares (Appellant/First Cross-Respondent)
A J Myers QC/K A Stern SC/K H Barrett/R J Hardcastle (First…
Continue reading Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 323
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 323
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the proper construction of the agreement and, in particular, whether the appellant was liable to pay royalties on iron ore extracted from land where title was derived through or under the appellant, and whether the appellant was liable for royalties on ore produced in association with other entities. These issues required the court to interpret the terms of the agreement concerning the scope of the defined area and the circumstances under which royalties were triggered.
The Court of Appeal's reasoning focused on the principles of contractual construction, emphasising the importance of the text of the agreement itself and the context in which it was made. The court analysed the specific clauses of the agreement relating to the defined area and the payment of royalties, considering the ordinary meaning of the words used and the overall purpose of the contract. The court determined that the appellant was liable to pay royalties on iron ore mined from the defined area, irrespective of whether the mining was conducted by the appellant directly or by entities deriving title through the appellant. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant was liable for royalties on ore produced in association with others, as this fell within the scope of the royalty obligations as defined in the agreement.
The Court of Appeal ordered that the parties bring in proposed short minutes of order to give effect to the reasons for judgment, with supporting submissions, within specified timeframes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order that the parties bring in proposed short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons for judgment, with supporting submissions, in accordance with the following timetable:
(1) The appellant within 14 days of the date of this judgment;
(2) The respondents within a further 14 days;
(3) Any reply by the appellant within a further 14 days.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.