Grundt v Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited [1937] HCA 58

| Ben "Se Gr ee Be fplpiden Yectew rt Millon lion fruersiate) finer hideous bette" tree, fier) a coe as, SAR Ho (S55726an (386) 8 aor vie ha Pl Fol he a a oe oe Hage. —ageee (og os het SHEED on firvac 4 Ref to Mor cwena fe oe "BP marcon ite Ma Parramae eietaslee Semew Bie tanee vi ae aad Seeate, A a cet 7s Teo tt 'ctions. LGERA 233 Lath 1996) 69. | (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.} GRUNDT AND OTHERS APPELLANTS ; PuaintIFFs, AND THE GREAT BOULDER PROPRIETARY a R ESPONDENT. GOLD MINES LIMITED... DEFENDANT, Mining—Tribute agreement—Trespass—Conversion—Description of land "by metes H.C, or A. and bounds" —Construction of agreement—Power of cancellation—Estoppel— 1937, Mining Act 1904-1932 (W.A.) (No. 15 of 1904—No. 45 of 1932), secs. 142, 143, G7 145, 150. Perrs, Sept. 15-17, In a tribute agreement the portion of the mine to be worked by the tributers 20 ; Oct. 8. was defined as lying between two parallel horizontal planes identified by | 7a 5 Latham C.J., reference to features of the site and between two parallel vertical planes 'Dixon, and

identified by measurements from a reference point on the site. But the third dimension was given only as twenty feet on either side of a lode described as the east vein of a named lode.

Held that this description did not comply with sec. 143 of the Mining Act 1904-1932 (W.A.), which provides that every tribute agreement, unless it extends to the mine as a whole, shall by metes and bounds describe the land as a specified and defined block of ground, but that, as the tribute had been registered under the Act, it was not for this reason invalid against the tributers,

A tribute agreement provided that the ore won by the tributers should be delivered to the mine owner (a company) for treatment and that the latter should supply the compressed air for drilling and other things. 'The mine owner was to account to the tributers for half the gross proceeds of the gold, less specified