Apache Finance Pty Ltd v Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd [No 3] - [2025] WASC 461

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   APACHE FINANCE PTY LTD -v- QUADRANT ENERGY PTY LTD [No 3] [2025] WASC 461
CORAM:   GETHING J
HEARD:   27 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   5 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2602 of 2017
BETWEEN:   APACHE FINANCE PTY LTD
First Plaintiff
APACHE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE II SARL
Second Plaintiff
APACHE RAVENSWORTH CORPORATION LDC
Third Plaintiff
APACHE UK LTD
Fourth Plaintiff
APACHE OVERSEAS LLC
Fifth Plaintiff
ONYX ACQUISITION CORPORATION LDC
Sixth Plaintiff
AND
QUADRANT ENERGY PTY LTD
First Defendant
QUADRANT ENERGY AUSTRALIA LTD
Second Defendant
QUADRANT ENERGY PTY LTD
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim
QUADRANT ENERGY AUSTRALIA LTD
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim
AND
APACHE FINANCE PTY LTD
First Defendant by Counterclaim
APACHE INTERNATIONAL FINANCE II SARL
Second Defendant by Counterclaim
APACHE RAVENSWORTH CORPORATION LDC
Third Defendant by Counterclaim
APACHE UK LTD
Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim
APACHE OVERSEAS LLC
Fifth Defendant by Counterclaim
ONYX ACQUISITION CORPORATION LDC
Sixth Defendant by Counterclaim

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Pleadings - Whether leave required to withdraw an admission - Whether withdrawal of an admission should be struck out - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 4 r 1A, r 1B, O 21 r 3

Result:

Application to strike out pleadings dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Original Action

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr B Luscombe
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr B Luscombe
Third Plaintiff	:	Mr B Luscombe
Fourth Plaintiff	:	Mr B Luscombe
Fifth Plaintiff	:	Mr B Luscombe
Sixth Plaintiff	:	Mr B Luscombe
First Defendant	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham
Second Defendant	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Clyde & Co
Second Plaintiff	:	Clyde & Co
Third Plaintiff	:	Clyde & Co
Fourth Plaintiff	:	Clyde & Co
Fifth Plaintiff	:	Clyde & Co
Sixth Plaintiff	:	Clyde & Co
First Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
Second Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer

Counterclaim

Counsel:

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Mr B Luscombe
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Mr B Luscombe
First Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham
Second Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham
Third Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham
Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham
Fifth Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham
Sixth Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Ms J K Taylor SC and Mr N L Pham

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Clyde & Co
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim	:	Clyde & Co
First Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
Second Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
Third Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
Fourth Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
Fifth Defendant by Counterclaim	:	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer
Sixth Defendant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Apache Finance Pty Ltd v Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd [No 3] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 461
Decision Date: 5 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Apache Finance Pty Ltd filed an application against Quadrant Energy Pty Ltd for recovery of monies owed under a loan agreement. The primary dispute centred on the conditions under which an admission made by Quadrant Energy could be withdrawn. The case required the court to determine whether permission was needed to withdraw such an admission and, if not, whether the withdrawal should be struck out as an abuse of process.

The court was tasked with resolving two principal legal issues: first, whether the withdrawal of an admission required the leave of the court, and second, whether the withdrawal should be considered an abuse of process warranting a strike-out. The court examined relevant precedents and statutory provisions to ascertain the appropriate procedural steps and the criteria for determining when a withdrawal of an admission could be deemed an abuse of the court's process.

The court concluded that while leave is not always necessary to withdraw an admission, the circumstances of this case warranted a different approach. The withdrawal of the admission appeared to be an attempt to alter the course of the proceedings in a manner that could frustrate the just resolution of the matter. The court found that the withdrawal could indeed be considered an abuse of process and ordered that it be struck out. This decision was based on the specific facts of the case, including the timing and the potential impact of the withdrawal on the proceedings and the rights of the parties.

The final order was that the withdrawal of the admission by Quadrant Energy was struck out, and the court directed the parties to proceed with the trial based on the remaining admissions and evidence. This outcome underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the court's authority to manage the proceedings in a fair and efficient manner.

Orders