Title: Delays and Dollars: The Long Road to Resolution in Mineralogy v CITIC

In one of the most drawn-out legal sagas in recent memory, the Supreme Court of Western Australia has issued a final costs decision in a dispute that began with iron ore royalties and ended with a strong judicial message about delay, diligence, and respect for legal process.

The case: Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [No 19] [2025] WASC 234.

While the original ruling in 2017 decided the substantive issues of the case, it was the postscript—a six-year delay in resolving costs—that has drawn the ire of the court and legal observers alike.

Setting the Scene: Royalties in the Pilbara

The legal journey began in the rugged Pilbara region of Western Australia, where CITIC Pacific, through its subsidiaries Sino Iron Pty Ltd and Korean Steel Pty Ltd, entered into a series of complex Mining Right and Site Lease Agreements (MRSLAs) with Mineralogy Pty Ltd, chaired by businessman Clive Palmer.

The MRSLAs entitled CITIC to mine iron ore from Mineralogy’s tenements and required payment of two types of royalties:

• Royalty A: A fixed rate per tonne.
• Royalty B (RCB): A variable royalty based on prevailing iron ore benchmark prices.

At the time of signing, the global iron ore trade used a long-standing benchmark pricing system to determine market value. But in 2010, that system collapsed and was replaced by a more dynamic index-based model. CITIC argued that this change rendered Royalty B inoperable. Mineralogy disagreed.

The 2017 Verdict: A Big Win, a Big Price

In 2017, after extensive hearings, Justice Kenneth Martin handed down a judgment decisively in Mineralogy’s favour. He found that Royalty B remained legally enforceable and that CITIC had not been relieved of its obligations. The ruling unlocked hundreds of millions in unpaid royalties and interest for Mineralogy and dismissed CITIC’s counterclaims in full.

Justice Martin described CITIC’s arguments as strained, noting that the commercial purpose of the royalty clause should be upheld despite market shifts. Yet, despite the magnitude of the judgment, the court did not make a final determination on legal costs. The parties elected to pursue cost mediation instead.

And Then: Silence

What followed was one of the most surprising developments in the case: almost total inaction.

For over five years, no mediation occurred. The parties took no meaningful steps to resolve costs. In the meantime, the original trial judge retired. Court records gathered dust.

Only in 2023—nearly six years after the ruling—did the parties attempt mediation, which ultimately failed. Forced to re-engage, they brought the issue back before the court, now presided over by Justice Lundberg.

The 2025 Ruling: Judicial Frustration

Justice Lundberg’s tone was measured but pointed. In his 2025 judgment, he called the delay “extraordinary and excessive in the extreme.” The lapse in finalizing a key aspect of litigation, he observed, was not only procedurally improper but also deeply inefficient. He expressed concern that the memory and context of the original trial had eroded.

He emphasized that costs are not an afterthought. They are a critical component of judicial finality, closure, and respect for the rule of law.

What the Court Decided

Ultimately, the court ordered:

• Standard (party-party) costs in favour of Mineralogy, reflecting its success in the substantive proceedings.
• No indemnity costs, despite Mineralogy’s request. The judge found that CITIC’s arguments, while unsuccessful, were not so unreasonable as to justify an uplift.
• No cost recovery for CITIC, which had sought costs related to amendments and interlocutory issues. The court was unwilling to revisit granular matters so long after the event.

Justice Lundberg declined to apportion blame for the delay to either party specifically but stressed that both sides had allowed the issue to languish, to the detriment of judicial efficiency.

The Legal Landscape: Understanding Cost Orders

In Australian civil litigation, the general rule is that the losing party pays the winning party’s costs. These are typically awarded on a standard basis unless exceptional circumstances justify indemnity costs—a rarer and more generous order.

Indemnity costs are awarded when a party has conducted itself inappropriately, brought hopeless claims, or acted in breach of procedural fairness. They are not awarded lightly, and as this case shows, delay can actually weaken an otherwise strong claim for indemnity.

Here, Mineralogy pointed to its contractual cost clauses and CITIC’s failed counterclaims. But Justice Lundberg noted that the contractual basis was ambiguous, and the delay had compromised the court’s ability to assess whether indemnity was warranted.

Implications for the Legal Profession

The judgment delivers a strong warning to litigants and legal practitioners: finalizing costs is not optional. It is a professional responsibility that must be executed with diligence and timeliness. In large-scale litigation, the stakes are too high to allow cost issues to languish.

Justice Lundberg’s commentary suggests that courts are prepared to call out procedural stagnation and will factor delay into discretionary decisions. That means that even a victorious party can forfeit strategic advantages by failing to act.

Commercial Litigation and the Burden of Memory

Another important theme in the judgment is the burden courts bear when revisiting decisions years after trial. Without the original judge, and with many records and recollections faded, the court is placed in a difficult position. That can lead to conservative rulings and missed opportunities.

This highlights why efficiency is not just a matter of professional conduct, but of legal efficacy. Litigants who delay resolution risk losing more than money—they risk judicial clarity.

The Parties: What Can Be Said

It’s important to clarify that the court did not impugn the reputations or integrity of either party. Mineralogy and CITIC Pacific, both major commercial entities, pursued and defended their positions through proper legal channels.

The criticism centered not on the legitimacy of their claims, but on the administrative failure to finalize costs. Both parties are entitled to enforce their rights. But even parties acting within their rights must be mindful of procedural obligations.

A Final Word: Delay Is a Cost in Itself

In the end, the most valuable lesson from Mineralogy v CITIC [No 19] is that delay itself carries a cost—not just in time or money, but in clarity, influence, and perception.

When the courtroom fell silent after the 2017 judgment, it was not closure. It was a pause. A pause that turned into paralysis. And in the end, it was that procedural vacuum—not the legal arguments—that shaped the outcome of the final chapter.

For lawyers, clients, and courts alike, this case is a compelling reminder that litigation does not end when the judgment is handed down. It ends when the court says it does—and only after every loose thread is tied.