Yarri Mining Pty Ltd v Eaglefield Holdings Pty Ltd - [2009] WASC 125

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: YARRI MINING PTY LTD -v- EAGLEFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD [2009] WASC 125

CORAM: LE MIERE J

HEARD: 15-17 DECEMBER 2008

DELIVERED : 14 MAY 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 1958 of 2008

MATTER :Claim for declaration for exploration licences to be declared a nullity pursuant to the Mining Act 1998

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

Catchwords:

Mining Act 1978 (WA) - Claim for declaration that mining licences granted by the Minister to the first defendant were a nullity - Whether the prohibition against applying for the grant nullifies the Minister's decision - Turns on own facts

Crown Suits Act 1947 (WA) - Effect of non-compliance with s 6 of the Crown Suits Act - Whether the court should decline to declare the licences nullities due to the plaintiff's non-compliance - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Crown Suits Act 1947 (WA), s 3, s 6, s 10
Limitation Act 1935 (WA), s 47A
Limitation Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2005 (WA)
Mining Act 1978 (WA), s 49, s 57, s 58, s 59, s 63A, s 69, s 96A, s 105, s 105B, s 116, s 154

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr T North SC & Mr J Garas
First Defendant              :     Mr E M Corboy SC & Mr J D Steedman
Second Defendant         :     Mr A S Bell SC & Mr J A Thomson
Third Defendant            :     No appearance
Fourth Defendant           :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Lawton Lawyers
First Defendant              :     Karp Steedman Ross-Adjie
Second Defendant         :     Tottle Partners
Third Defendant            :     No appearance
Fourth Defendant           :     No appearance

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

Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Atkins v Minister for Mines (1996) 15 WAR 226
Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421
Hunter Resources Ltd v Melville (1987) 164 CLR 234
Judamia v The State of Western Australia (Unreported, SCt of WA FCt, Library No 960114S, 1 March 1996)
Judamia v The State of Western Australia (Unreported, SCt of WA, Library No 950137, 23 January 1995)
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Trade Practices Tribunal, ex parte Tasmanian Breweries Pty Ltd (1970) 123 CLR 361
Russian Commercial and Industrial Bank v British Bank for Foreign Trade Ltd [1921] 2 AC 438
Tasker v Fullwood [1978] 1 NSWLR 20
Yougarla v The State of Western Australia [1999] WASCA 248; (1999) 21 WAR 488

LE MIERE J: This action turns on two questions. First, are exploration licenses granted by the Minister to the first defendant (Eaglefield) nullities because Eaglefield applied for the exploration licences on behalf of…

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: [2009] WASC 125
Decision Date: 14 MAY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yarri Mining Pty Ltd v Eaglefield Holdings Pty Ltd involved a dispute over mining licenses granted by the Minister under the Mining Act 1978 of Western Australia. Yarri Mining, the plaintiff, sought a declaration that the mining licenses granted to Eaglefield Holdings, the defendant, were null and void. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant was ineligible to apply for the grants, thereby rendering the licenses void ab initio.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the prohibition against an ineligible party applying for a mining license nullified the Minister's decision to grant the license, and whether the plaintiff's non-compliance with section 6 of the Crown Suits Act 1947 should preclude it from seeking a declaration of nullity. The court needed to determine the interplay between statutory provisions and the effect of non-compliance with procedural requirements.

In its decision, the court examined the specific facts of the case and concluded that the prohibition on ineligible parties applying for licenses did not nullify the Minister's decision to grant them. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the Crown Suits Act did not prevent it from seeking a declaration of nullity. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application.

As a result of the court's findings, the application was dismissed, and the mining licenses granted to Eaglefield Holdings were not declared null and void. The court's decision hinged on the specific circumstances of the case, leaving the licenses in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.