Payne v Dwyer

In Payne v Dwyer, the plaintiff, Payne, sought to prevent the defendant, Dwyer, from claiming a co-proprietary interest in minerals located in land owned by Payne. The dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where Payne argued that Dwyer's claim of adverse possession of the minerals was invalid and that Dwyer had converted the minerals by extracting and selling them. The legal issues at the heart of this case involved the interpretation and application of the Limitation Act 1935 (WA) and the nature of the mineral rights as either an interest in land or a chattel.

The court was required to determine whether Dwyer had established 'actual possession' of the minerals for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1935 (WA) and whether the mineral interest was derived from an 'instrument'. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the minerals could be classified as a chattel capable of conversion, and if so, whether Dwyer's actions constituted conversion under the law. The court also had to consider the implications of Dwyer's actions on Payne's co-proprietary interest in the minerals.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia held that Dwyer had not established the requisite 'actual possession' of the minerals to claim adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1935 (WA). The court found that the interest in the minerals was not derived from an 'instrument', and therefore, the limitation period did not apply. The court also determined that the minerals were not chattels capable of conversion, dismissing Payne's claim for conversion. Consequently, Dwyer's counterclaim for adverse possession was also dismissed. The court upheld Payne's claim that the mineral interest had not been extinguished and dismissed Dwyer's counterclaim.