Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [No 2]

[2013] WASC 375

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Test for grant
4. › Prima facie case and balance of convenience
5. › Whether plaintiff has prima facie case
6. › Whether balance of convenience favours grant
7. › Relationship between strength of prima facie case and balance of convenience
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Balance of convenience
4. › Disproportion between claimed default and consequences of suspension or termination
5. › Multi-billion dollar project
6. › Disputed debt of $287,000
7. › Whether future conduct relevant to balance of convenience
1. Contract
2. › Construction
3. › Royalty provisions in mining agreements
4. › Whether royalty formula capable of calculation
5. › Cessation of Annual Benchmark Pricing System
6. › Whether reference to prevailing published prices limited to benchmark pricing system
7. › Uncertainty, voidness or unenforceability of contractual formula
1. Mining and Resources
2. › Joint ventures
3. › Mining Right and Site Lease Agreements
4. › Default notices
5. › Suspension and termination
6. › Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002 (WA)

Quick Take

A party seeking to suspend or terminate a multi-billion dollar project on the basis of a disputed debt of $287,000 (with potential loss of $15,000 to $25,000) will be restrained by interlocutory injunction where the defendants have a prima facie case that the default notice is invalid and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours restraint. The case also illustrates that a court will not draw inferences about future non-payment from the evidence on an interlocutory application where the defendants have expressed willingness to meet obligations found to be owing.