Ann: Writ from Estrella Resources Ltd, page-21

Here are several legal cases where courts have ruled in favor of royalty holders in disputes involving withheld payments due to asset sales or restructuring, situations similar to the ongoing matter between Widgi, Auric, and ESR:

1. Drem Pty Ltd v LRL (AUST) Pty Ltd \[2024] NSWSC 1422

In this case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales addressed a dispute concerning royalty obligations under historical deeds related to mining tenements at Kathleen Valley, Western Australia. The court found in favor of Drem Pty Ltd, the royalty holder, emphasizing that royalty obligations persisted despite changes in ownership or restructuring of the mining assets. 

2. Cromarty Resources Pty Ltd v Thalanga Copper Mines Pty Ltd \[2021] NSWSC 1024

Here, Cromarty was obliged to pay Thalanga a monthly 4% net sales royalty under an Asset Sale Agreement. Despite commencing production and sales, Cromarty delayed royalty payments, citing cash flow issues. The court ruled that such financial difficulties did not absolve Cromarty of its contractual obligations, reinforcing the enforceability of royalty agreements regardless of the payer's financial situation. 

3. Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Adani Mining Pty Ltd \[2022] QDC 154

This case involved a dispute over royalty payments where the parties had agreed to an expert determination process for resolving such issues. The court upheld the sanctity of the contractually agreed dispute resolution mechanism, indicating that parties cannot bypass agreed processes in favor of litigation. This underscores the importance of adhering to contractual terms concerning royalty payments and dispute resolutions. 

These cases collectively highlight the judiciary's tendency to uphold the rights of royalty holders, emphasizing that contractual obligations related to royalties remain enforceable despite asset sales, financial difficulties, or restructuring by the paying party.