AUSTRALIAN GASFIELDS LTD -v- KVAERNER PROCESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD [2001] WASCA 320

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 320
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:116/2001	Heard:	20 SEPTEMBER 2001
Coram:	ANDERSON J TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	22/10/01
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Injunction discharged
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AUSTRALIAN GASFIELDS LIMITED (ACN 009 330 134) KVAERNER PROCESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 005 500 890)
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appeal against granting of interlocutory injunction Whether party who has a bona fide claim is entitled to enforce a security which has been provided as a risk allocation device
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 63A Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 60
Case References:	Fletcher Construction Australia Ltd v Varnsdorf Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 812 Kvaerner Process Systems Pty Ltd v Australian Gasfields Ltd [2001] WASC 155 Pearson Bridge (NSW) Pty Ltd v The State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 1 ACLR 81 Wood Hall Ltd v Pipeline Authority (1979) 141 CLR 443 Anaconda Operations Pty Ltd v Fluor Daniel Pty Ltd (2000) 16 BCL 230 Austal Ships Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA (Templeman J); Library No 970037; 13 February 1997 Australian Broadcasting Commisison v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99 Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd & Ors v Resolute Ltd & Ors [2000] WASC 284 Bellgrove v Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 Christie v Harvey & Hayward (1900) 2 WAR 146 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v Vanadium Australia Pty Ltd [2000] WASC 1 L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd [1974] AC 235 Mantegna v Seafeast Sales Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950497; 24 August 1995 Morris v A1 Pools Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 335 Palata Investments Ltd v Burt & Sinfield Ltd [1985] All ER 517 Reed Construction Services Pty Ltd v Kheng Seng (Australia ) Pty Ltd (1999) 15 BCL 158 TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Hayden Enterprises Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 130 Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : AUSTRALIAN GASFIELDS LTD -v- KVAERNER PROCESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD [2001] WASCA 320 CORAM : ANDERSON J

TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD : 20 SEPTEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 22 OCTOBER 2001 FILE NO/S : FUL 116 of 2001 BETWEEN : AUSTRALIAN GASFIELDS LTD (ACN 009 330 134)

Appellant

AND

KVAERNER PROCESS SYSTEMS PTY LTD (ACN 005 500 890)

Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal against granting of interlocutory injunction - Whether party who has a bona fide claim is entitled to enforce a security which has been provided as a risk allocation device

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 63A

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA),…

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 Australian Gasfields Ltd v Kvaerner Process Systems Pty Ltd 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: [2001] WASCA 320
Decision Date: 22 OCTOBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Australian Gasfields Ltd appealed against an interlocutory injunction granted to Kvaerner Process Systems Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether Australian Gasfields, who had a bona fide claim, was entitled to enforce a security provided by Kvaerner as a risk allocation device. The primary legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether Australian Gasfields could enforce a security provided as a risk allocation device against Kvaerner, even if it was not a party to the agreement creating the security. The court considered whether the security was intended to be available to Australian Gasfields and whether it would be just and equitable to enforce the security against Kvaerner.

The court examined the nature of the security and the terms of the agreements between the parties. It was found that the security was intended as a risk allocation device between Kvaerner and another party, not Australian Gasfields. The court concluded that Australian Gasfields, despite having a bona fide claim, was not entitled to enforce the security because it was not a party to the agreement creating the security. Furthermore, enforcing the security against Kvaerner would not be just and equitable given the circumstances. The court held that Australian Gasfields' entitlement to enforce the security was not absolute and depended on the specific terms and intentions of the agreements involved.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and discharged the injunction. This decision underscores the importance of the specific terms and intentions behind security arrangements and the need for parties to be aware of their rights and obligations under such agreements. The outcome reinforces the principle that a party who is not a signatory to a security agreement cannot enforce the security provisions against the other party, even if they have a bona fide claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Injunction discharged

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.