WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD [2016] WASCA 50

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 50
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:107/2015	Heard:	1 FEBRUARY 2016
Coram:	McLURE P NEWNES JA CORBOY J	Delivered:	18/03/16
No of pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted on ground 3 Leave to appeal refused on grounds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD HAMERSLEY WA PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Interlocutory appeal from strike out of pleading Whether contract plea arguable Scope and effect of Constitution Act 1890 (Imp) Whether power in Mining Act 1978 (WA) to enter into contract
Legislation:	Constitution Act 1890 (Imp), s 3 Mining Act 1904 (WA), s 276, s 277 Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 10, s 11, s 19, s 20, s 59, s 75 Mining Act Amendment Act 1971 (WA)
Case References:	Australian Anglo American Prospecting Ltd v CRA Exploration Pty Ltd [1981] WAR 97 Commonwealth of Australia v State of Western Australia (1999) 196 CLR 392 Hubbard Association of Scientologists International v Attorney-General (Vic) [1976] VR 119 L'Huillier v State of Victoria [1996] 2 VR 465 New South Wales v Bardolph (1934) 52 CLR 455 Nicholas v Western Australia [1972] WAR 168 Tipperary Developments Pty Ltd v The State of Western Australia (2009) 38 WAR 488 Williams v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 16 CLR 404

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD [2016] WASCA 50 CORAM : McLURE P

NEWNES JA

CORBOY J

HEARD : 1 FEBRUARY 2016 DELIVERED : 18 MARCH 2016 FILE NO/S : CACV 107 of 2015 BETWEEN : WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD

First respondent

HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD

Second respondent

HAMERSLEY WA PTY LTD

Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : LE MIERE J

Citation : WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD [No 3] [2015] WASC 231

File No : CIV 3041 of 2010, CIV 2671 of 2012

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Interlocutory appeal from strike out of pleading - Whether contract plea arguable - Scope and effect of Constitution Act 1890 (Imp) - Whether power in Mining Act 1978 (WA) to enter into contract

Legislation:

Constitution Act 1890 (Imp), s 3

Mining Act 1904 (WA), s 276, s 277
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 10, s 11, s 19, s 20, s 59, s 75
Mining Act Amendment Act 1971 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on ground 3

Leave to appeal refused on grounds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Myers QC Mr J Rowland QC & Mr A T Broadfoot

First…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] WASCA 50
Decision Date: 18 MARCH 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd versus Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the validity and enforceability of a contract between the two parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and involved an interlocutory appeal from a decision to strike out a pleading. The central issue in the case was whether the contract between the parties was arguable and enforceable. The dispute also involved the scope and effect of the Constitution Act 1890 (Imp) and whether the Mining Act 1978 (WA) provided the power to enter into a contract.

The court was required to determine whether the contract between the parties was arguable and enforceable, and whether the Mining Act 1978 (WA) provided the power to enter into a contract. The court considered the scope and effect of the Constitution Act 1890 (Imp) and whether the contract was within the scope of the powers granted by the Act. The court also considered whether the contract was valid and enforceable under the common law of Australia.

The court held that the contract between the parties was not arguable and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the Mining Act 1978 (WA) did not provide the power to enter into a contract and that the contract was not within the scope of the powers granted by the Constitution Act 1890 (Imp). The court also found that the contract was not valid and enforceable under the common law of Australia. The court granted leave to appeal on ground 3 but refused leave to appeal on grounds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted on ground 3

Leave to appeal refused on grounds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Appeal dismissed

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.