State of New South Wales v Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 174

Appeal Outcome: Special leave granted by the High Court, 11 December 2009, s48/2009Judgment reserved, 10 March 2010 [2010] HCATrans 43

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION: State of New South Wales v Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 174

HEARING DATE(S): 18 March 2009

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 July 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Basten JA at 94; Handley AJA at 126

1 Allow the appeal and set aside the orders and declarations made in the Equity Division on 16 June 2008. DECISION: 2 Declare that the copper in the specified land is a publicly owned mineral for the purposes of the Mining Act 1992. 3 Order that the respondents repay to the Minister all moneys paid to them in execution of the judgment in the Court below together with interest from the date of such payment until the moneys are repaid, calculated at the rate prescribed in the Fifth Schedule to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. 4 Order the respondents to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and in the Court below.

CATCHWORDS: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - the non-judicial organs of government - the Crown – prerogative rights of the Crown – abrogation and modification of prerogative by statute - royal mines and minerals – Royal Mines Acts 1688 and 1693 - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - imperial, colonial, state and Commonwealth Constitutional relationships - Imperial legislation – reception and operative effect in New South Wales – Royal Mines Acts 1688 and 1693 - ENERGY AND RESOURCES - minerals – ownership of minerals under prerogative – scope of prerogative over minerals intermixed with gold and silver - s 379 Mining Act 1992 - REAL PROPERTY - general principles - Crown grants – royal minerals need not be expressly reserved to the Crown - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - acts of parliament – interpretation – rules of construction – purposive interpretation – acts of constitutional significance - Royal Mines Acts 1688 and 1693 - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - acts of parliament – interpretation – utility of repealed statute in interpretation of subsisting statute.