Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd

307 words (1 pages) Case Summary

17th Jun 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): Australian Law

Grundt v Great Boulder Pty Gold Mines Ltd [1937] HCA 58

When an estoppel arises.


The appellants entered into an agreement in June 1934 with the respondent mining company to mine gold ore in a certain area. The mining company provided facilities, processed and sold the ore, giving the miners one half share in the gross profits of sale. The appellants exceeded the agreed area that was to be mined. When the company found out in May 1935 it complained but continued to receive the ore and pay the appellants. This continued until August 1936, when the mining company cancelled the agreement.


The appellants argued that the mining company were estopped from cancelling the agreement or had waived their rights because they had already received and processed the ore and provided essential mining equipment. The respondents claimed the appellants were entitled to nothing because they had exceeded the agreed mining area under the agreement.


The High Court of Australia held that the company was estopped from claiming back a share of profits after they had complained about the appellants mining outside the agreed territory, but could claim back the share of profits they had parted with before they had complained. Latham CJ held that the appellants were induced to act to their detriment by working due to the company’s conduct which gave their apparent consent. He said there was some overlap between estoppel and waiver, by which a person abandoned their rights. Dixon J said that the claimant’s original position only operates as a detriment at the moment the person gives an assurance. By consenting to further mining operations, the company had given such an assurance.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "Australian Law"

This selection of academic papers covers the legal system of Australia and contains, essays, dissertations and case summaries which may be of interest to Australian law students or those studying Australian laws from outside Australia.

Related Articles