thoughts on mt m trial, page-24

MethodicalApproach, this is my take on the case and is IMO.

As seen in the following Mantle are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief -

In 2007, Mantle subsidiary Trafford Coal Pty Ltd (Trafford) acquired an 87.5% interest in the Mt
Mulligan tenements from Calcifer Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd (Calcifer) following exercise by Trafford of
an option granted by Calcifer.
In 2008, Calcifer agreed to transfer the remaining 12.5% interest in the Mt Mulligan tenements to Mt
Mulligan Coal Pty Ltd (Mt Mulligan), prior to Trafford purchasing of all of the shares in that company.
In 2008, Agreement in Principle was reached with the traditional custodians of Mt Mulligan and a full
draft Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) was progressed.
In 2009, Mantle received a Notice of Intention to Terminate the Agreement for the acquisition of the Mt
Mulligan tenements. This third party claim caused a delay in finalisation of the ILUA and Mantle
became aware that Calcifer was acting in a manner inconsistent with what had been agreed in relation
to the transfer of Calcifer’s interest in the Mt Mulligan Tenements.
In March 2010, Trafford and Mt Mulligan commenced proceedings against Calcifer in the Supreme
Court of Queensland to enforce the agreement for assignment of the Mt Mulligan tenements. Trafford
and Mt Mulligan are claiming injunctive and declaratory relief.
In April 2010, Calcifer filed a “Notice of Intention to Defend and Defence”, contending that conditions
precedent to the sale of interests in the Mt Mulligan Tenements were not satisfied. Mantle’s position is
that the conditions precedents were waived.
By July 2010, Mantle had provided Calcifer its list of relevant documents however Calcifer filed a
Notice of Change of Solicitor and alleged that Mantle’s solicitor had a conflict of interest. Mantle
retained Allens Arthur Robinson Lawyers to further progress the action.
In May 2011, the Court heard Trafford’s and Mt. Mulligan’s application to file their Amended Claim and
Statement of Claim and to have the matter placed on the Commercial List. Calcifer opposed the
application however the Court rejected Calcifer’s opposition and ordered that Trafford and Mt. Mulligan
be granted leave to file the Amended Claim and Statement of Claim and that the matter be placed on
the Commercial List. The Court ordered Calcifer file its Amended Defence and Counterclaim by 6
June 2011 and listed the matter for review on 13 July 2011.
Calcifer failed to comply with the order that it file its Amended Defence and Counterclaim by 6 June
2011. Moreover, Calcifer’s solicitors applied to the Court for leave to withdraw from representing
Calcifer in the proceedings.

A few definitions of declaratory relief -

Declaratory relief(also known as declaratory judgement)

Declaratory relief -
Declaratory relief refers to a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. By seeking a declaratory judgment, the party making the request is seeking for an official declaration of the status of a matter in controversy. Optimally, the resolution of the rights of the parties involved will prevent further litigation. For example, a party to a contract may seek the legal interpretation of a contract to determine the parties' rights, or an insured may seek a determination of insurance coverage under a policy.

Decaratory judgement-
Individuals may seek a declaratory judgment after a legal controversy has arisen but before any damages have occurred or any laws have been violated. A declaratory judgment differs from other judicial rulings in that it does not require that any action be taken. Instead, the judge, after analyzing the controversy, simply issues an opinion declaring the rights of each of the parties involved. A declaratory judgment may only be granted in justiciable controversies—that is, in actual, rather than hypothetical, controversies that fall within a court's jurisdiction.

A declaratory judgment, sometimes called declaratory relief, is conclusive and legally binding as to the present and future rights of the parties involved. The parties involved in a declaratory judgment may not later seek another court resolution of the same legal issue unless they appeal the judgment.

Declaratory judgments are often sought in situations involving contracts, deeds, leases, and wills. An insurance company, for example, might seek a declaratory judgment as to whether a policy applies to a certain person or event. Declaratory judgments also commonly involve individuals or parties who seek to determine their rights under specific regulatory or criminal laws.

Declaratory judgments are considered a type of preventive justice because, by informing parties of their rights, they help them to avoid violating specific laws or the terms of a contract.

Injunctive means Mantle are seeking an injunction based on the judges decision.

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions. In some cases, breaches of injunctions are considered serious criminal offenses that merit arrest and possible prison sentences.

So IMO Mantle are asking the court to look at the facts and make a decision on whether or not Calcifer are required to honour the original agreement and handover the tenement. They are also seeking an injunction to force the handover if that is what the judge decides is right.

Seeking declaratory relief is a way of getting a reasonably quick decision and avoiding the huge court costs that can go with a long drawn out court battle so IMO it is very likely that we will get a decision and an injunction within the allocated 4 days. IMO the judge will have set aside a time frame which he believed would be sufficient to provide injunctive and declaratory relief.

As I said, this is just my take on it.

Cheers
B Rubes