Legal Research
Cases
Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority

Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority

Link copied

Case Copied 30 November 2006 10 min read

Contents

On this page

BARCLAY MOWLEM CONSTRUCTION LTD -v- DAMPIER PORT AUTHORITY & ANOR [2006] WASC 281

Reported Decision:	(2006) 33 WAR 82
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 281
Case No:	CIV:1389/2006	Heard:	30 NOVEMBER 2006
Coram:	MARTIN CJ	Delivered:	29/11/06
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Directions for parties to confer Question of further directions in relation to pleading be reviewed at a later date The time within which an application to strike out the statement of claim be extended Other pre-trial directions made Costs reserved
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BARCLAY MOWLEM CONSTRUCTION LTD DAMPIER PORT AUTHORITY STEPHEN NICHOLSON
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Circumstance in which Court will entertain objection to pleadings and argument in relation to particulars Pre-trial case management Case management techniques and pre-trial directions Contemporary purposes of pleadings Objections Provision of particulars Obligation to confer
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : BARCLAY MOWLEM CONSTRUCTION LTD -v- DAMPIER PORT AUTHORITY & ANOR [2006] WASC 281 CORAM : MARTIN CJ HEARD : 30 NOVEMBER 2006 DELIVERED : 30 NOVEMBER 2006 FILE NO/S : CIV 1389 of 2006 BETWEEN : BARCLAY MOWLEM CONSTRUCTION LTD

Plaintiff

AND

DAMPIER PORT AUTHORITY

First Defendant

STEPHEN NICHOLSON

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Circumstance in which Court will entertain objection to pleadings and argument in relation to particulars - Pre-trial case management - Case management techniques and pre-trial directions - Contemporary purposes of pleadings - Objections - Provision of particulars - Obligation to confer

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Directions for parties to confer

Question of further directions in relation to pleading be reviewed at a later date
The time within which an application to strike out the statement of claim be extended
Other pre-trial directions made
Costs reserved

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr C J Colvin SC

First Defendant : Mr S R Boyle

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Mallesons Stephen Jaques

First Defendant : Clayton Utz

Second Defendant : No appearance

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MARTIN CJ: The only aspect of the applications that are before me that are contested today is the plaintiff's application for orders that:

1. previous case management orders made by the case managing Registrar be varied so that the solicitors for the plaintiff be relieved from conferring with the solicitors for the defendant in relation to the written objections to the amended substituted statement of claim dated 1 November 2006; and

2. that by 8 December 2006, the defendant provide to the plaintiff revised written objections to the statement of claim setting out in a succinct form the primary reasons why the defendant says the statement of claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or why the statement of claim is not in a form which the defendant can plead to and that thereafter the practitioners orally confer in relation to…

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 Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority 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: [2006] WASC 281
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd brought proceedings against the Dampier Port Authority and Stephen Nicholson. The case involved a dispute over the adequacy of the plaintiff's statement of claim. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, presided over by Martin CJ. The primary legal issues before the court were the proper approach to addressing and resolving disputes over the adequacy of a statement of claim in the context of contemporary case management practices.

Martin CJ emphasized the importance of considering the contemporary purposes of pleadings and the role of pre-trial case management in defining issues and appraising parties of the case to be met. The court noted that in the current case management environment, where extensive pre-trial disclosures are mandated, the court should be cautious about expending resources on technical pleadings disputes that do not significantly impact trial preparation. The court found many of the defendant's objections to be pedantic and not conducive to efficient case resolution.

The court decided to encourage the parties to confer through their counsel to identify and resolve substantial objections to the statement of claim. It directed that the time within which an application to strike out the statement of claim could be made be extended and that further directions regarding the pleading would be reviewed at a later date. The court's orders included a direction for the parties to confer in light of the reasons provided, with a review of further directions set for a future date.

Martin CJ's decision aimed to balance the need for clear and concise pleadings with the practical realities of complex litigation, emphasizing the importance of focusing on substantive issues rather than technicalities. The court reserved costs and set a future date for reviewing further directions regarding the pleading.

Orders