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

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

The tribute agreement did not comply with the statutory requirement to describe the tribute land by metes and bounds, but such defect did not render it invalid after registration. The company was not estopped from enforcing the true boundaries after becoming aware of the trespass but was precluded from recovering payments made to the tributers after that time since those payments were voluntary. The company was entitled to an account and recovery only for ore won before it became aware the tributers were outside the tribute area.

Parties
Appellants; Plaintiffs; Tributers: Grundt and Others; Respondent; Defendant; Mine Owner: The Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (from the Warden's Court) / Judgment on Appeal to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs. Supreme Court order discharged and substituted as per the High Court's order.
Legal Topics
Tribute Agreements, Trespass and Conversion, Estoppel, Construction of Mining Agreements
Mining Law Contract Law Equity Property Law Tribute Agreements Trespass and Conversion Estoppel Construction of Mining Agreements

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 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grundt and Others

Appellants; Plaintiffs; Tributers

The Great Boulder Proprietary Gold Mines Limited

Respondent; Defendant; Mine Owner

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (from the Warden's Court) / Judgment on Appeal to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the description of land in the tribute agreement satisfied statutory requirements under the Mining Act 1904-1932 (W.A.), sec. 143.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent company was estopped from denying the tributers' right to mine disputed ore.
  3. 3 Whether the company could recover proceeds paid to tributers for ore mined outside the tribute area after discovering the same.

Ratio Decidendi

The tribute agreement did not comply with the statutory requirement to describe the tribute land by metes and bounds, but such defect did not render it invalid after registration. The company was not estopped from enforcing the true boundaries after becoming aware of the trespass but was precluded from recovering payments made to the tributers after that time since those payments were voluntary. The company was entitled to an account and recovery only for ore won before it became aware the tributers were outside the tribute area.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs. Supreme Court order discharged and substituted as per the High Court's order.

Orders

  • Declaration that the tributers were not entitled under the tribute agreement to mine the disputed lode beyond twenty feet from the centre of the main lode.
  • Declaration that the tributers mined outside the permitted area and ought to be restrained from further such working.