NSW v Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd

[2009] NSWCA 174

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Constitutional Law
2. › Prerogative rights of the Crown
3. › Royal mines and minerals
4. › Scope of prerogative over minerals intermixed with gold and silver
5. › Whether prerogative extends to copper in gold-copper mine
6. › Whether Royal Mines Acts 1688 and 1693 (UK) abrogated prerogative
7. › Mining Act 1992 (NSW), s 379
1. Constitutional Law
2. › Imperial, colonial, state and Commonwealth constitutional relationships
3. › Imperial legislation
4. › Reception and operative effect in New South Wales
5. › Royal Mines Acts 1688 and 1693 (UK)
6. › Whether 1693 Act received as part of law of New South Wales
7. › Australian Courts Act 1828 (Imp), s 24
8. › Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW)
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Rules of construction
4. › Abrogation of prerogative by statute
5. › Whether clear words or necessary implication required
6. › Whether Royal Mines Acts displaced prerogative over gold-copper mines
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Utility of repealed statute in interpretation of subsisting statute
4. › Whether repealed 1693 Act relevant to construction of 1688 Act
5. › Statute enacted for 'better explanation' of earlier statute

Quick Take

Copper intermixed with gold in an ore body that is properly characterised as a gold-copper mine (rather than solely a copper mine) is a publicly owned mineral under the Mining Act 1992 (NSW), owned by the Crown under the royal prerogative. The Royal Mines Acts 1688 and 1693 (UK) only withdrew from the prerogative mines fairly characterisable as copper mines; a mine that can only be described as a gold-copper mine remains within the prerogative. The characterisation of a mine for prerogative purposes should not fluctuate with changes in ore grades or market values. The question of where the boundary lies in borderline cases was expressly left open.