NSW Caselaw
Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 323 Hearing dates: 29 and 30 May 2014 Decision date: 16 September 2014 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Meagher JA at [87]; Barrett JA at [104] Decision: Order that the parties bring in proposed short minutes of order to give effect to these reasons for judgment, with supporting submissions, in accordance with the following timetable: (1) The appellant within 14 days of the date of this judgment; (2) The respondents within a further 14 days; (3) Any reply by the appellant within a further 14 days. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: CONTRACTS - construction and interpretation of contracts - appellant and respondents entered into written agreement whereby rights to certain temporary reserves were divided - whether royalties payable by appellant in respect of iron ore mined in defined area - whether ore mined by entities deriving title to relevant land through or under appellant - whether ore produced by appellant in association with others Legislation Cited: Mining Act 1904 (WA), ss 48, 276 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), s 12A Cases Cited: Castle Constructions Pty Ltd v Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 11; 247 CLR 149 Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; 149 CLR 337 Electricity Generation Corporation (t/as Verve Energy) v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] HCA 7; 88 ALJR 447 Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd [2009] NSWCA 407; 76 NSWLR 603 Horsell International Pty Ltd v Divetwo Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 368 Mainteck Services Pty Ltd v Stein Heurtey SA [2014] NSWCA 184 Newey v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] NSWCA 319 Roussel-Uclaf v GD Searle & Co Ltd (No 2) [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep 225 Sahab Holdings Pty Ltd v Registrar-General (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 42; 16 BPR 30,353 Streller v Albury City Council [2013] NSWCA 348; Aust Torts Reports 82-146 Tanning Research Laboratories Inc v O'Brien [1990] HCA 8; 169 CLR 332 Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd [2011] HCA 45; 86 ALJR 1 Texts Cited: Lewison and Hughes, The Interpretation of Contracts in Australia, (2012, Lawbook Co) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd (Appellant) Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd (First Cross-Respondent) Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: N J Young QC/M J Darke/Q Rares (Appellant/First Cross-Respondent) A J Myers QC/K A Stern SC/K H Barrett/R J Hardcastle (First Respondent) N C Hutley SC/J C Giles (Second Respondent) Solicitors: Allens (Appellant/First Cross-Respondent) Clayton Utz (First Respondent) Horton Rhodes (Second Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2013/173153 Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 9111 Citation: Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hamersley Iron Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 536 Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 709 Before: Hammerschlag J File Number(s): SC 2009/323345
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate