Peter Dunning KC, Matt Karam and Henry Cooper (appearing with Kris Byrne and Dominic Fawcett) appeared for the successful first respondent, Mineralogy Pty Ltd, in Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2026] WASCA 71 (Quinlan CJ, Vaughan JA and Smith AUJ), a significant appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia that proceeded across 7 hearing days.
The case was fought between the proponents of a large magnetite ore mining project conducted upon tenements owned by Mineralogy and leased to the appellants, CITIC Limited, and its subsidiaries, Sino Iron Pty Ltd and Korean Steel Pty Ltd (CITIC parties) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The project has been carried on since around 2008 pursuant to a suite of agreements between the parties (and a State Agreement) and has involved an estimated capital expenditure by the CITIC parties of over $12 billion.
At first instance (Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd (No 15) [2023] WASC 56), the CITIC parties had sought relief compelling Mineralogy to take certain steps ostensibly to ensure the continuation of the project, including by submitting proposals prepared by the CITIC parties to the Minister under the applicable State Agreement, and granting additional tenement areas to them for no additional consideration, on the asserted basis that tenure over those areas was “reasonably required” for the continuation of the project. In response to Mineralogy’s refusal to take the steps sought, in 2018 the CITIC parties brought claims in contract, under the Australian Consumer Law, and in estoppel. These claims were rejected by Kenneth Martin J.
The CITIC parties appealed the rejection of their breach of contract claims, advancing 18 grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded that the primary judge was correct to determine that it was first necessary for the CITIC parties to establish that they were contractually entitled to compel Mineralogy to grant additional tenure to them on terms required by them (including for nil consideration) before Mineralogy was obliged to submit the proposals. The Court then agreed with the primary judge that the CITIC parties had not established that Mineralogy was in breach of any express or implied terms (including express and asserted implied terms as to good faith) said to give rise to an obligation on Mineralogy to grant additional tenure on terms required by the CITIC parties. All grounds of appeal, and cross-appeal, were rejected.
The first respondent’s counsel were instructed by Robinson Nielsen. The appellants were represented by two senior counsel and two junior counsel, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer.
Back to all