Moffat v Sheppard [1909] HCA 22

Moffat v Sheppard [1909] HCA 22

On the facts as found, equity would not enforce specific performance of the oral mining tribute as there was no sufficient detrimental reliance by the licensees and no substantial expenditure to justify an estoppel against revocation. The licence was therefore lawfully revocable, and had been revoked on 2 May 1907. The licence authorised up to ten men working six days a week and did not contemplate Sunday work.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Moffat; Respondents; Defendants: Sheppard (Sydney and Arthur); Appellant; Plaintiff: Alexander; Defendant (in Action by Alexander): Moffat; Respondent; Defendant: Irvinebank Mining Co. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland (which Had Heard an Appeal From District Court From Warden’s Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; decision of District Court restored.
Legal Topics
Mining Tribute, Licences and Revocation, Specific Performance, Interests in Land, Estoppel, Statute of Frauds
Property Law Mining Law Equity Mining Tribute Licences and Revocation Specific Performance Interests in Land Estoppel +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moffat

Appellant; Plaintiff

Sheppard (Sydney and Arthur)

Respondents; Defendants

Alexander

Appellant; Plaintiff

Moffat

Defendant (in Action by Alexander)

Irvinebank Mining Co. Ltd.

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Cross Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of Queensland (which Had Heard an Appeal From District Court From Warden’s Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral licence to mine on tribute is revocable at law or in equity.
  2. 2 Whether the licence to mine is personal or authorises employment of others.
  3. 3 Whether the licence allows unlimited men or work on Sundays.

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts as found, equity would not enforce specific performance of the oral mining tribute as there was no sufficient detrimental reliance by the licensees and no substantial expenditure to justify an estoppel against revocation. The licence was therefore lawfully revocable, and had been revoked on 2 May 1907. The licence authorised up to ten men working six days a week and did not contemplate Sunday work.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; decision of District Court restored.

Orders

  • Judgment of Supreme Court of Queensland varied and reversed to restore District Court decision.
  • Licence found revocable; revocation effective as of 2 May 1907; limitation to ten men working six days a week affirmed.