Cumnock No. 1 Colliery P/L v Pacific Power & Anor [2002] NSWCA 278

Cumnock No. 1 Colliery P/L v Pacific Power & Anor [2002] NSWCA 278

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the trial judge to hold that the February and May 1994 correspondence produced an immediately binding variation of the parties' arrangements, including the Royalty Deed, notwithstanding anticipated later formal documentation and clause 11 requiring amendment by deed. The parties acted and intended to act as if bound, and the only contentious issue concerning whether royalties ran until the earlier or later of two dates had been resolved by May 1994.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Contract Law Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Bergin J in the Supreme Court Equity Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['contract Formation' 'contract Variation' 'variation of Deed' 'masters V Cameron Categories' 'coal Supply Contract' 'royalty Deed']
['contract Law'] ['contract Formation' 'contract Variation' 'variation of Deed' 'masters V Cameron Categories' 'coal Supply Contract' 'royalty Deed']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contract Law Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Bergin J in the Supreme Court Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the February and May 1994 letters varied the Royalty Deed as well as the Coal Supply Contract.' 'Whether the parties were content to be bound immediately and exclusively by the terms agreed upon while expecting later formal documentation.' 'Whether clause 11 of the Royalty Deed, requiring amendment by further deed, prevented the parties from varying their arrangements by the February and May 1994 correspondence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because it was open to the trial judge to hold that the February and May 1994 correspondence produced an immediately binding variation of the parties' arrangements, including the Royalty Deed, notwithstanding anticipated later formal documentation and clause 11 requiring amendment by deed. The parties acted and intended to act as if bound, and the only contentious issue concerning whether royalties ran until the earlier or later of two dates had been resolved by May 1994.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']