Smith v Great Boulder Perseverance Gold Mining Company Limited (In Liquidation) [1920] HCA 58

Smith v Great Boulder Perseverance Gold Mining Company Limited (In Liquidation) [1920] HCA 58

If the arrangement between the company and the tributors amounted to an illegal sale under section 205 of the Mining Act 1904, it cannot be relied upon as a foundation for any legal claim. If the tribute agreement was not lawfully varied (i.e. not registered and verified), it remains enforceable; the company must account under the original tribute agreement. A contract prohibited by statute is void and unenforceable.

Parties
Appellants; Plaintiffs: Alfred William Smith, Frank Dominish, Vincent Roberts and John Peat; Respondent; Defendant: The Great Boulder Perseverance Gold Mining Company Limited (in Liquidation); Respondent; Defendant: E. D. Cleland (as attorney and agent for the liquidator)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 1920
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Supreme Court affirmed
Legal Topics
Tribute Agreement, Illegality of Contract, Sale of Gold, Variation of Contract, Statutory Compliance
Mining Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Tribute Agreement Illegality of Contract Sale of Gold Variation of Contract Statutory Compliance

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred William Smith, Frank Dominish, Vincent Roberts and John Peat

Appellants; Plaintiffs

The Great Boulder Perseverance Gold Mining Company Limited (in Liquidation)

Respondent; Defendant

E. D. Cleland (as attorney and agent for the liquidator)

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrangement between the parties amounted to a sale prohibited by section 205 of the Mining Act 1904 (WA).
  2. 2 Whether the company was obliged to account under the tribute agreement or if the arrangement and sale prevented this.
  3. 3 Whether the variation of the tribute agreement was lawful and compliant with registration requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

If the arrangement between the company and the tributors amounted to an illegal sale under section 205 of the Mining Act 1904, it cannot be relied upon as a foundation for any legal claim. If the tribute agreement was not lawfully varied (i.e. not registered and verified), it remains enforceable; the company must account under the original tribute agreement. A contract prohibited by statute is void and unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Supreme Court affirmed

Orders

  • No order as to costs of appeal