BP Exploration Co. v. Hunt, (1980) 23 A.R. 271 (NWTSC)

JudgeTallis, J.
CourtSupreme Court of Northwest Territories (Canada)
Case DateJune 23, 1980
JurisdictionNorthwest Territories
Citations(1980), 23 A.R. 271 (NWTSC)

BP Exploration Co. v. Hunt (1980), 23 A.R. 271 (NWTSC)

MLB headnote and full text

BP Exploration Co. (libya) Ltd. v. Hunt

(SC 5259)

Indexed As: B.P. Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd. v. Hunt

Northwest Territories Supreme Court

Tallis, J.

January 23, 1980.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Constitutional Law - Topic 774

Territorial limits - Provinces - Northwest Territories - The plaintiff obtained a Mareva injunction which prevented the defendant from disposing of exploration permits for land under the Beaufort Sea - The defendant applied to have the injunction set aside on the ground that he did not have assets within the jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court dismissed the application and held that the sub-sea lands were within the territorial limits of Canada and the court would not distinguish ownership of the Crown in the right of Canada and ownership of the Crown in the right of the province - See paragraphs 24 to 32.

Injunctions - Topic 1600

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles respecting grant of interim injunction - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court stated the guidelines to be applied by a court in deciding whether to grant a Mareva or interim injunction - See paragraph 34.

Injunctions - Topic 1608

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Requirement of plaintiff's intent to litigate or seek a permanent injunction - The plaintiff obtained a Mareva injunction, which prevented the defendant from disposing of assets within the jurisdiction - The defendant applied to have the injunction set aside on the ground that a Mareva or interim injunction could not be obtained unless the plaintiff was seeking a permanent injunction - The Northwest Territories Supreme Court dismissed the application and held that an action for a permanent injunction was not a prerequisite to the granting of a Mareva or interim injunction - See paragraph 21.

Cases Noticed:

Iraqi Ministry of Defence et al. v. Arcepey Shipping Co. SA, The Angel Bell, [1980] 1 All E.R. 480, folld. [para. 3].

B.P. Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd. v. Hunt (No. 2), [1979] 1 W.L.R. 783, refd to. [para. 9].

Pivovaroff v. Chernabaeff (1978), 16 S.A.S.R. 329, refd to. [para. 16].

Campbell v. Campbell (1881), 29 Gr. 252, refd to. [para. 16].

Baxter v. Jacobs, Moss et al. (1889), 1 B.C.R. 370, refd to. [para. 16].

Burdett v. Fader (1903), 6 O.L.R. 532, refd to. [para. 16].

Fairchild v. Elmslie (1909), 2 Alta. L.R. 115, refd to. [para. 16].

Albertson v. Secord (1912), 1 D.L.R. 804, refd to. [para. 16].

Ferguson v. Ferguson (1916), 29 D.L.R. 364, refd to. [para. 16].

Stairs, Son and Morrow v. Neilson (1920), 56 D.L.R. 674, refd to. [para. 16].

Bedell v. Gefaell et al. (No. 2), [1938] O.R. 726, refd to. [para. 16].

Bradley Brothers (Oshawa) Ltd. v. A to Z Rental Canada Ltd., [1970] 3 O.R. 787, refd to. [para. 16].

Robert Reiser & Co. Inc. v. Nadore Food Processing Equipment Ltd. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 717, refd to. [para. 16].

O.S.F. Industries Ltd. v. Marc-Jay Investments Inc. (1978), 20 O.R.(2d) 566, refd to. [para. 16].

Pacific Investment Co. v. Swan (1898), 3 Terr. L.R. 125, refd to. [para. 16].

Rosu Maritima S.A. v. Perusahlaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina), [1977] 3 All E.R. 324, refd to. [para. 16].

Eveleigh, L.J., in Chartered Bank v. Daklouche, [1980] 1 All E.R. 205, refd to. [para. 17].

Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v. Unimarine SA, [1979] 2 All E.R. 972, refd to. [para. 17].

Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. International Bulkcarriers S.A. (the "Mareva"), [1980] 1 All E.R. 213, folld. [para. 10].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, refd to. [para. 21].

Petryshyn et al. v. Kochan et al., [1940] 2 W.W.R. 353, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Keyn (1876), 2 Ex. D. 64, refd to. [para. 29].

Dome Petroleum Limited v. Hunt (1978), 1 F.C. 11, refd to. [para. 31].

Board v. Board, [1919] 2 W.W.R. 940, refd to. [para. 31].

Fletcher v. Fletcher, [1920] 1 W.W.R. 5, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Tootalik E4-321, 71 W.W.R.(N.S.) 435, refd to. [para. 31].

Third Chandris Shipping Corp. et al. v. Unimarine S.A., [1979] 2 All E.R. 972, folld. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Ordinance, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, c. J-1, sect. 3, sect. 10 [para. 31]; sect. 19(h) [para. 18].

Rules of Court (N.W.T.), rule 39(a) [para. 24].

Partnership Ordinance, R.O.N.W.T. 1974, c. P-1, sect. 25(2) [para. 26].

Northwest Territories Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. M-22, sect. 2 [para. 27].

Territorial Lands Act, S.C. 1972, c. 17, sect. 2(1) [para. 30].

Public Lands Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-29 [para. 30].

Counsel:

H.L. Murphy, for applicant defendant;

J.L. McDougall and E. Johnson, for respondent plaintiff.

This case was heard on April 26, 1980, at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, by TALLIS, J., of the Northwest Territories Supreme Court.

On June 23, 1980, TALLIS, J., delivered the following judgment.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT