Boral Contracting Pty Ltd v Moore

In the matter of Boral Contracting Pty Ltd v Moore, the appellant sought leave to appeal against orders made by Scott DCJ on 2 September 2008. These orders concerned the respondent's proposed statement of claim in a consolidated proceeding involving multiple defendants. Boral, one of the defendants, was the second defendant in the District Court action. The respondent also sought leave to appeal against the order for costs made in favour of Boral. The appeal's necessity for leave was due to the interlocutory nature of the orders, which did not constitute a final judgment under s 79(1) of the District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA). The legal issue before the court was whether leave to appeal should be granted given that the decision below was wrong or attended with sufficient doubt to justify the granting of leave, and if substantial injustice would result from leaving the decision unreversed.

The court found that the orders appealed against were not as asserted in the notice of appeal. Instead, the orders dealt with the proposed amended statement of claim in the consolidated proceedings, specifying which parts of the proposed amended consolidated statement of claim were allowed or not allowed, and granting limited leave to replead. The court considered the significant time and effort expended in the District Court on the pleading issues, noting the Chief Justice's observations in Youlden Enterprises Pty Ltd v Health Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd that interlocutory disputes concerning pleadings 'must be actively discouraged'. The court also examined the merits of the pleadings, which involved a claim for serious personal injuries due to an accident on a road where the Main Roads had arranged for work, carried out by either Boral or the other defendants.

The court ultimately refused leave to appeal on the grounds that the appeal did not meet the criteria for granting leave. The pleadings had been the subject of considerable time and decision-making, and the respondent's proposed statement of claim had been sufficiently addressed by the District Court's orders. Additionally, the court did not find that substantial injustice would be done by leaving the decision unreversed. The respondent's cross-appeal was also dismissed, and leave to cross-appeal was granted but the cross-appeal was dismissed. The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused, leave to cross-appeal was granted, and the cross-appeal was dismissed.