The Court of Appeal held that the CITIC parties had no contractual entitlement, whether under express terms or implied terms of good faith and mutual co-operation, to compel Mineralogy to grant additional mining tenure beyond the existing Site Lease Area defined in the MRSLAs. Recital E of the MRSLAs — stating Mineralogy 'will also consider any further requests' for tenure 'reasonably required' — did not create a positive obligation to grant additional tenure, and even if implied obligations of good faith or mutual co-operation required Mineralogy to consider such requests, those obligations were not breached and could not, in the circumstances, generate an obligation to grant the tenure sought. Without an entitlement to additional tenure, the claim to compel submission of the 2017 Mine Continuation Proposals also failed; however, the cross-appeal was also dismissed, with the trial judge's order requiring Mineralogy to submit a Programme of Works (confined to the existing Site Lease Area) upheld on the basis of the express reasonable assistance obligation in clause 15.1(c) of the MRSLAs.
The full text is available to signed-in members.