Legal Research
Cases
Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson

Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson

Link copied

Case Copied 20 December 1991 37 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: BEACH PETROLEUM NL and CLAREMONT PETROLEUM NL
And: MALCOLM KEITH JOHNSON; MICHAEL JOHN FULLER; CHRISTOPHER PAUL McDONALD
MAIN; JOSEPH PATRICK CUMMINGS; FIRSTWAY LIMITED; JINGELLIC MINERALS NL;
SPARGOS MINING NL; ENTERPRISE GOLD MINES NL; INDEPENDENT RESOURCES LTD and
INDEPENDENT RESOURCES (ASIA) GROUP PTY LTD
No. G53 of 1991
FED No. 839
Practice and Procedure
(1991) 105 ALR 456

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Von Doussa J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - pleadings - strike-out application - whether reasonable causes of action - distinction between material facts and particulars - whether statements of material fact appearing under the heading of "Particulars" should be read as part of the pleading - whether facts alleging economic loss intentionally caused by dishonest means pleads a tenable cause of action.

HEARING

ADELAIDE

#DATE 20:12:1991

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr J.R. Sulan QC with Mr C.N.H. Bagot

Solicitor for the Applicants: Piper Alderman

Counsel for the seventh Respondent: Mr S. Archer QC

Solicitor for the seventh Respondent: Finlaysons

ORDER

The notice of motion stand adjourned with liberty to the applicants to further amend the amended statement of claim in light of these reasons for decision within 28 days.

The question of costs be reserved.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

This is an application by the seventh-named respondent Spargos Mining NL ("Spargos") pursuant to O.11, r.16(a) of the Federal Court Rules to strike out paragraphs 86D, 90, 91A, 91B, 92, 93, 94, 97, 97A, 97B, 97C, 97D, 97E, 106 and 108 of the amended statement of claim on the ground that they do not disclose a reasonable cause of action against Spargos.

In these proceedings the applicants claim wide ranging relief on a variety of grounds against the respondents in respect of loss and damage arising out of the acquisition in the name of Beach Petroleum NL ("Beach") of certain interests in the Burbank Oil Field in Oklahoma in the United States of America.
The structure of the statement of claim is as follows. Paragraphs 1 to 74 describe the companies, company directors, and other entities and persons said to be involved in one way or another in transactions concerning the Burbank oil interests; describe a chain of transactions whereby the Burbank oil interests came to be acquired by the first applicant, Beach; and describe the manner in which payment for those interests occurred. Then in paragraphs 75 to 103 causes of action under eight separate heads are pleaded against some or all of the respondents. Finally in paragraphs 104 to 109 specific relief is claimed against the respondents or some of them.
It is necessary for an understanding of the arguments advanced by Spargos on the notice of motion to refer in detail to the case pleaded by the applicants. Beach, Claremont Petroleum NL ("Claremont"), Spargos, Jingellic Minerals NL ("Jingellic"), Enterprise Gold Mines NL ("Enterprise") and Independent Resources Ltd ("IRL") are each companies listed on…

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 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson 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: [1991] FCA 839
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beach Petroleum NL brought an action against Johnson, seeking compensation for economic loss allegedly caused by dishonest means. The case was heard in the Federal Court, which was asked to determine whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficiently particularised to withstand a strike-out application. The plaintiff's statement of claim included material facts that were alleged to have caused economic loss through dishonest means. The defendant argued that the statement of claim was vague and did not provide enough detail to allow for a proper defence.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's statement of claim contained a reasonable cause of action, and whether the facts alleged under the heading of "Particulars" should be read as part of the pleading. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff had pleaded a tenable cause of action for economic loss caused by dishonest means. The court considered the distinction between material facts and particulars, and whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficiently particularised to withstand a strike-out application.

The court found that the plaintiff's statement of claim was not sufficiently particularised to withstand a strike-out application. The court noted that the facts alleged under the heading of "Particulars" should be read as part of the pleading, and that the plaintiff had not provided enough detail to allow for a proper defence. However, the court also noted that the plaintiff had pleaded a tenable cause of action for economic loss caused by dishonest means. The court held that the plaintiff's statement of claim should not be struck out, but that the plaintiff would be given an opportunity to further amend their statement of claim within 28 days. The question of costs was reserved for a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

The notice of motion stand adjourned with liberty to the applicants to further amend the amended statement of claim in light of these reasons for decision within 28 days.

The question of costs be reserved.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.