St Barbara Ltd v Hockley (No 2)

In St Barbara Ltd v Hockley (No 2), St Barbara sought to assign the mining lease to another party, with Mr Hockley's consent. Mr Hockley refused to consent, and St Barbara brought proceedings seeking a declaration that Mr Hockley's refusal to consent was unreasonable. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which found that Mr Hockley's refusal to consent was unreasonable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Hockley's refusal to consent to the assignment was unreasonable. The court had to consider the provisions of the Sale Agreement, which provided for the sale of the mining lease, and the circumstances surrounding Mr Hockley's refusal to consent to the assignment. The court also had to consider whether the reasons provided by Mr Hockley for withholding consent were reasonable or whether he acted in a manner that was unreasonable.

The court found that none of the reasons provided by Mr Hockley for withholding consent were reasonable. The court held that the refusal to consent was unreasonable because Mr Hockley's actions were not in accordance with the proper construction of the Sale Agreement, which provided that consent should not be unreasonably withheld. The court also found that Mr Hockley's refusal to consent was influenced by his desire to achieve a collateral advantage, which was not a reasonable basis for withholding consent. The court noted that the Sale Agreement provided that consent should not be unreasonably withheld and that Mr Hockley's refusal to consent was unreasonable because he did not act in accordance with the terms of the Sale Agreement.

The court made a declaration that Mr Hockley's refusal to consent to the assignment was unreasonable and ordered him to do all things necessary to enable the transfer of the mining lease. The court also ordered that Mr Hockley pay St Barbara's costs of the proceedings.