Rio Tinto Exploration Pty Ltd v Graphite Holdings Pty Ltd

[2007] WASCA 276

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Construction of written contracts
3. › Assignment agreement
4. › Scope of assignment
5. › Whether assignment of mining tenements and mining information included assignment of contractual right to receive drill core samples from third party
6. › Whether chose in action assigned
1. Contract
2. › Breach
3. › Measure of damages
4. › Cost of cure
5. › Cost of replicating drilling programme
6. › Whether cost of cure reasonable where plaintiff no longer held original tenements
7. › Whether plaintiff suffered loss
8. › Bellgrove v Eldridge principle
1. Evidence
2. › Inferences of fact
3. › Possession of chattels
4. › Standard industry practice
5. › [name withheld] v [name withheld] inference from failure to call witnesses
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interest
3. › Pre-judgment interest
4. › Discretion under Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 32
5. › Whether interest should be awarded where damages assessed as at date of trial rather than date of breach
6. › Whether award of interest resulted in overcompensation

Quick Take

Drill core samples obtained during mineral exploration have a separate physical existence and value apart from the land or mining tenement to which they relate, such that a party entitled to receive them suffers loss when they are not delivered, even if the party no longer holds the relevant tenement. The cost of replicating a drilling programme is an appropriate measure of damages for failure to deliver drill core samples where there is no market equivalent. Pre-judgment interest under s 32 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) should not be awarded from the date of breach where damages are assessed as at the date of trial, as this would overcompensate the plaintiff (per [name withheld], dissenting on this point).