1110 Hay Pty Ltd as trustee for the Hay Street Trust v Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd [No 4]

1110 Hay Pty Ltd as trustee for the Hay Street Trust brought proceedings against Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute arose from a lease agreement and a subsequent compromise agreement. The primary issues involved claims for amounts payable under both the lease and the compromise agreement, with a specific focus on the applicability of statutory interest under the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) and the procedural requirements set out in the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).

The court was required to determine whether Metso Minerals was obligated to expressly plead its reliance on Section 32(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act in response to the trustee's claim for interest pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Act. Additionally, the court had to decide whether, by virtue of Section 32(2)(b), Section 32(1) did not apply in relation to any debt upon which interest was, but is no longer, payable as of right. The court's analysis also included the principles of contract construction relevant to the lease agreement and compromise.

The court held that Order 20 Rule 9(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court does not abrogate or limit Order 20 Rule 8(1), but rather exemplifies its operation in pleadings subsequent to the Statement of Claim. The rule requires a party to specifically plead any statutory defence or statutory provision that may render the proceedings non-maintainable. The court found that Metso Minerals was not required to expressly plead its reliance on Section 32(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act, as the entitlement to interest under Section 32(1) was not a 'claim' within the meaning of Order 20 Rule 9(1)(a). The court concluded that a 'claim' refers to the facts that give rise to the party's action, not the remedy sought. Additionally, the court determined that the defendant could not have anticipated the need to rely on Section 32(2)(b) before the court's findings were made.

The final orders of the court were that Metso Minerals was not required to expressly plead its reliance on Section 32(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act in response to the trustee's claim for interest pursuant to Section 32(1) of the Act. The court also ruled that the principles of contract construction applied to the lease agreement and compromise agreement would need to be reconsidered in light of these findings.