Cadia Case Analysis
LEGAL RESEARCH ESSAY
Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2010) 242 CLR 195
Word Count: 1,496
Introduction- Factual Background
Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd and Newcrest Operations Ltd (NOL) owned land in New South Wales, granted to them by the State of New South Wales under the Mining Act 1992 (NSW). From July 1998 to March 2008, Cadia conducted mining operations in which it recovered minerals including copper and gold, and paid royalties to the Minister pursuant to the Mining Act 1992 (NSW). The Minister referred to the Case of Mines[1], claiming that the mine owned by Cadia was a “royal mine” containing gold that belonged to the Crown prerogative, and as a consequence the copper was also the property of the Crown. Cadia commenced proceedings against the State of New South Wales and the Minister claiming unjust enrichment and failure to comply with the statutory duty in s 284(2)(a) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) to pay to them seven-eighths of the royalties relating to copper.
The Issues
An analysis of Cadia Holdings P/L v NSW[2] case reveals the issue whether copper when mixed with gold is considered privately owned or publicly owned mineral for the purposes of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) and whether the Crown's prerogative, established in the Case of the Mines[3] has survived in such a way that would attach it to the intermingled copper with gold being mined.
The court has to decide the issue of whether the intermingled copper and gold was a ‘mine of copper’ or a ‘mine of gold’ or both and what characterisation can be given namely ‘privately owned minerals’ or ‘publicly owned minerals’.
The respective ownership of the parties to their legal rights to minerals of copper and gold
The prerogative rights and ownership of gold and silver existed from the beginning and it is settled law that ownership was and still remains in the Crown. The ownership of gold and silver by the Crown was never taken away though there was a change in the
Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2010) 242 CLR 195
Word Count: 1,496
Introduction- Factual Background
Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd and Newcrest Operations Ltd (NOL) owned land in New South Wales, granted to them by the State of New South Wales under the Mining Act 1992 (NSW). From July 1998 to March 2008, Cadia conducted mining operations in which it recovered minerals including copper and gold, and paid royalties to the Minister pursuant to the Mining Act 1992 (NSW). The Minister referred to the Case of Mines[1], claiming that the mine owned by Cadia was a “royal mine” containing gold that belonged to the Crown prerogative, and as a consequence the copper was also the property of the Crown. Cadia commenced proceedings against the State of New South Wales and the Minister claiming unjust enrichment and failure to comply with the statutory duty in s 284(2)(a) of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) to pay to them seven-eighths of the royalties relating to copper.
The Issues
An analysis of Cadia Holdings P/L v NSW[2] case reveals the issue whether copper when mixed with gold is considered privately owned or publicly owned mineral for the purposes of the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) and whether the Crown's prerogative, established in the Case of the Mines[3] has survived in such a way that would attach it to the intermingled copper with gold being mined.
The court has to decide the issue of whether the intermingled copper and gold was a ‘mine of copper’ or a ‘mine of gold’ or both and what characterisation can be given namely ‘privately owned minerals’ or ‘publicly owned minerals’.
The respective ownership of the parties to their legal rights to minerals of copper and gold
The prerogative rights and ownership of gold and silver existed from the beginning and it is settled law that ownership was and still remains in the Crown. The ownership of gold and silver by the Crown was never taken away though there was a change in the
Bibliography: Cadia Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2010) 242 CLR 195 ‘The Case of Mines’ (1568) 1 Plow 310 [75 ER 472] Wade v New South Wales Rutile Mining Co Pty Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 177 at 186 Woolley v Attorney-General (Vic) (1877) 2 App Cas 163 at 166 [ 2 ]. (2010) 242 CLR 195. [ 5 ]. Wade v New South Wales Rutile Mining Co Pty Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 177 at 186. [ 7 ]. Woolley v Attorney-General (Vic) (1877) 2 App Cas 163 at 166.