Legal Research
Cases
Yarri Mining Pty Ltd v Eaglefield Holdings Pty Ltd

Yarri Mining Pty Ltd v Eaglefield Holdings Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 21 July 2010 31 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: YARRI MINING PTY LTD -v- EAGLEFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2010] WASCA 132

CORAM: McLURE P
OWEN JA
BUSS JA

HEARD: 17 FEBRUARY 2010

DELIVERED : 21 JULY 2010

FILE NO/S: CACV 61 of 2009

BETWEEN: YARRI MINING PTY LTD (ACN 120 304 261)
Appellant
AND
EAGLEFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 327 093)
First Respondent
NARNOO MINING PTY LTD (ACN 084 713 100)
Second Respondent
MINISTER FOR ENERGY, RESOURCES, INDUSTRY AND ENTERPRISE
Third Respondent
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MINES
Fourth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :LE MIERE J
Citation  :YARRI MINING PTY LTD -v- EAGLEFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2009] WASC 125
File No  :CIV 1958 of 2008

Catchwords:

Mining law - Statutory interpretation - Power to grant an exploration licence under s 57(1) of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) - Conflict or inconsistency between s 57(1) and s 69(1) - Consequences of a failure to comply with s 69(1) - Application of s 6 of the Crown Suits Act 1947 (WA) to the Minister and the Director General under the Mining Act

Legislation:

Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), s 122, s 160
Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 (WA), s 43
Crown Suits Act 1947 (WA), s 3, s 6
Limitation Act 1935 (WA), s 47A
Limitation Amendment and Repeal Act 2005 (WA), s 8
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 10, s 11, s 18, s 23, s 24, s 24A, s 25, s 27, s 29, s 40, s 52, s 56C, s 57, s 58, s 59, s 60, s 63A, s 69, s 70, s 70B, s 70D, s 70F, s 71, s 75, s 76, s 86, s 91, s 105, s 105A, s 105B, s 116, s 118, s 120, s 154

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr S G O'Bryan SC & Mr J Garas
First Respondent           :     No appearance
Second Respondent      :     Mr A S Bell SC & Mr L S Panotidis
Third Respondent          :     No appearance
Fourth Respondent        :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Lawton Lawyers
First Respondent           :     No appearance
Second Respondent      :     Tottle Partners
Third Respondent          :     No appearance
Fourth Respondent        :     No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Atkins v Minister for Mines (1996) 15 WAR 226
C & J Clark Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1973] 1 WLR 905; [1973] 2 All ER 513
Creasy v Hot Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 206
Crocker Consolidated Pty Ltd v Wille [1988] WAR 187
Crouch v Commissioner for Railways (Qld) [1985] HCA 69; (1985) 159 CLR 22
David Grant & Co Pty Ltd (Receiver Appointed) v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] HCA 43; (1995) 184 CLR 265
Harding v Coburn (1976) 2 NZLR 577
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy [1996] HCA 44; (1996) 185 CLR 149
Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville [1988] HCA 5; (1988) 164 CLR 234

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 Yarri Mining Pty Ltd v Eaglefield Holdings 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: [2010] WASCA 132
Decision Date: 21 JULY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yarri Mining Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, initiated legal proceedings against Eaglefield Holdings Pty Ltd, the defendant, concerning the validity of an exploration licence granted under the Mining Act 1978 (WA). The dispute centred on whether the statutory preconditions under section 69 of the Mining Act were strictly mandatory and whether failure to comply with these conditions resulted in the invalidity of the exploration licence granted under section 57(1). This case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The core legal issues revolved around the interpretation of sections 57(1), 69(1), 59(6), and 116(2) of the Mining Act, as well as the applicability of section 6 of the Crown Suits Act 1947 (WA) to the Minister and the Director General. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether non-compliance with section 69(1) rendered the exploration licence invalid and whether the Crown Suits Act provided immunity from such claims.

The court examined the statutory framework and relevant case law, notably Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville, to understand the mandatory nature of the statutory requirements. It was established that compliance with the marking out requirements under section 105(1) was mandatory and that failure to comply strictly with these requirements could lead to the invalidity of the prospecting licence. The court acknowledged that if an application in compliance with section 69 was a precondition to the power to grant an exploration licence under section 57(1), then non-compliance would render the grant invalid. This understanding was consistent with the principles outlined in David Grant & Co Pty Ltd (Receiver Appointed) v Westpac Banking Corporation, which held that failure to comply with a precondition to the existence of a power must result in invalidity. The court concluded that while non-compliance with a statutory requirement that is not a precondition to the existence of a power may result in invalidity, it is not necessarily so.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the failure to comply with section 69(1) did not automatically invalidate the exploration licence granted under section 57(1). The court found that section 69(1) was not a strict precondition to the existence of the power to grant an exploration licence, and thus non-compliance with it did not result in the invalidity of the licence. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of statutory preconditions and the distinction between mandatory and non-mandatory statutory requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Eaglefield and Narnoo conceded that if an application in compliance with s 69 is a precondition to the existence of the power to grant an exploration licence under s 57(1) of the Act, the grant of an exploration licence pursuant to an application prohibited by s 69(1) will be outside the scope of s 59(6) and s 116(2) of the Act and be invalid. These concessions are in line with authority: David Grant & Co Pty Ltd (Receiver Appointed) v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265, 279. Accordingly, the failure to comply with a precondition to the existence of a power under the Act must always result in invalidity. On the other hand, the failure to comply with a statutory requirement that is not a precondition to the existence of a power may (in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary), but not must, result in invalidity. Before addressing the issues, I propose to consider the relevant case law on the Act and the principles of statutory construction applicable in this area. The starting point is Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville (1988) 164 CLR 234. That case concerned an application for a prospecting licence under s 40 of the Act. Section 105(1) provided that before making an application for a mining tenement, the applicant shall mark out in the prescribed manner the land the subject of the application. The applicant's marking out did not comply in all respects with what was prescribed in the Mining Regulations that applied at the time. A majority of the High Court (Wilson, Dawson & Toohey JJ) upheld the warden's decision to refuse the application for a prospecting licence for non‑compliance with the prescribed requirements for marking out. Dawson J accepted that the warden's jurisdiction was not conditioned on the applicant complying with the prescribed marking out requirements (251). That conclusion is also implicit in the reasons of Wilson J who observed that if the licence had been granted, s 116(2) would have had the effect of protecting the prospecting licence from attack for failure to comply with the marking out requirements. The majority concluded that the requirement to mark out the land in the prescribed manner under s 105(1) was a mandatory requirement requiring strict compliance, substantial compliance being insufficient. In reaching the conclusion that the marking out requirement was mandatory, all members of the majority relied on s 105A which determines priorities between competing applicants for a tenement. Priority is accorded to the applicant who first complies with 'the initial requirement in relation to his application'. In the case of a prospecting licence, the initial requirement was the marking out of the land concerned in the prescribed manner. The issue in Hunter Resources was whether the warden erred in refusing to grant an application for a prospecting licence for non‑compliance with the marking out requirements. The issue in Crocker Consolidated Pty Ltd v Wille [1988] WAR 187, was whether failure to comply with the marking out requirements in s 105(1) of the Act invalidated prospecting licences that had already been granted under s 40 of the Act. Burt CJ (with whom Olney J agreed) held that although the marking out in the prescribed manner would establish priority as between competing applicants, it did not condition the warden's jurisdiction or power to grant the licence. Further, the majority held that the defective marking out was an 'irregularity' for the purposes of s 116(2) and thus the grant of the licences could not be impeached.