Legal Research
Cases
Central Exchange Ltd v Anaconda Nickel Ltd

Central Exchange Ltd v Anaconda Nickel Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 25 May 2001 56 min read

Contents

On this page

CENTRAL EXCHANGE LTD -v- ANACONDA NICKEL LTD [2001] WASC 128

Reported Decision:	(2001) 24 WAR 382
Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASC 128
Case No:	CIV:2316/2000	Heard:	6 MARCH 2001
Coram:	PARKER J	Delivered:	25/05/01
No of pages:	33	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applications dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	CENTRAL EXCHANGE LTD ANACONDA NICKEL LTD
Catchwords:	Contracts Construction and interpretation Implied terms Deed of Settlement of proceedings re sale of mining interests Whether defendant obliged to provide documents and information Fair dealing Whether necessary to enable plaintiff to have benefit of the contract Practice and procedure Pre-action discovery Interests of justice Contractual dispute resolution procedure Confidentiality Compliance burdensome
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 26A r 4
Case References:	Aiton Australia Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 996 Alcatel Australia Ltd v Scarcella (1998) 44 NSWLR 349 BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266 Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v Carlton & United Breweries Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 468 Clarkson v Director of Public Prosecutions [1990] VR 745 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 Cohen v Walthamstow Pty Ltd & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA (Sanderson M); Library No 980148; 30 March 1998 Davis & Ors v Sagar Pty Ltd & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA (Sanderson M); Library No 980443; 10 August 1998 Electronic Industries Ltd v David Jones Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 288 Elfic Ltd & Ors v Macks & Ors [2000] QSC 18 Far Horizons Pty Ltd v McDonalds Australia Ltd [2000] VSC 310 Garry Rogers Motors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Subaru (Aust) Pty Ltd (1999) ATPR 41-703 Horden-Richmond Ltd v Duncan [1947] 1 KB 545 Hughes Bros Pty Ltd v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney & Anor (1993) 31 NSWLR 91 J N Taylor Holdings Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Band & Ors (1993) 59 SASR 432 McCarthy & Ors v Dolpag Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 106 Paxus Services Ltd v People Bank Pty Ltd (1990) 99 ALR 728 Pratt Construction Ltd v Palmerston North City Council [1995] 1 NZLR 469 Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd (1979) 144 CLR 596 South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club Ltd v News Ltd [2000] FCA 1541 Australian Mutual Provident Society v 400 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd [1990] VR 646 Australian Securities Commission v Malborough Goldmines Ltd (1993) 177 CLR 485 Butt v M'Donald (1896) 7 QLJ 68 Government Employees Superannuation Board v Martin (1997) 19 WAR 224 Martselos Services Ltd v Arctic College [1994] 3 WWR 73 Posgold (Big Bell) Pty Ltd v Placer (Western Australia) Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 217 Riley v Jubilee Gold Mines NL [2000] WASC 114 Trans-Pacific Insurance Co (Australia) Ltd v Grand Union Insurance Co Ltd (1989) 18 NSWLR 675

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 Central Exchange Ltd v Anaconda Nickel 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] WASC 128
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff sought declarations that certain terms should be implied into a Deed of Settlement of proceedings between the parties. The Deed was in settlement of a sale of mining interests. The plaintiff sought declarations that the defendant would deal with the plaintiff in good faith and comply with its reasonable requests. The plaintiff also sought declarations that, in consequence of the implication of such terms, the defendant would be obliged to provide information and documents to the plaintiff. Alternatively, the plaintiff sought an order for pre-action discovery of the same information and documents. The defendant opposed the application. The court held that there was no implication of a term of good faith that would require the defendant to provide the plaintiff with the information and documents sought. The court also held that there was no implied term that the defendant would comply with the plaintiff's reasonable requests for information and documents. The court further held that the interests of justice did not require the court to order the defendant to provide the information and documents to the plaintiff by way of discovery. The court refused to make the declarations sought and dismissed the application for discovery.

Orders