CITIC PACIFIC LTD -v- MINERALOGY PTY LTD [2014] WASC 358 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 358 (S)
Case No:	CIV:3012/2012	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	12/03/15
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Costs orders to be made
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CITIC PACIFIC LTD SINO IRON PTY LTD KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD MINERALOGY PTY LTD CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Costs Orders as to costs arising from amendments by plaintiffs to statement of claim Orders as to costs arising from amendments by defendants to defence
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Citic Pacific Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 358 One.tel Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 270; (2000) 101 FCR 548 Walter v Buckeridge [No 4] [2011] WASC 313

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : CITIC PACIFIC LTD -v- MINERALOGY PTY LTD [2014] WASC 358 (S) CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 12 MARCH 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 3012 of 2012 BETWEEN : CITIC PACIFIC LTD

First Plaintiff

SINO IRON PTY LTD

Second Plaintiff

KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD

Third Plaintiff

AND

MINERALOGY PTY LTD

First Defendant

CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Costs - Orders as to costs arising from amendments by plaintiffs to statement of claim - Orders as to costs arising from amendments by defendants to defence

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Costs orders to be made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : No appearance

Second Plaintiff : No appearance

Third Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : Allens

Second Plaintiff : Allens

Third Plaintiff : Allens

First Defendant : Michael John Dunham

Second Defendant : Michael John Dunham

Cases referred to in judgment:

Citic Pacific Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 358
One.tel Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 270; (2000) 101 FCR 548
Walter v Buckeridge [No 4] [2011] WASC 313

EDELMAN J

Introduction

1 As a consequence of the narrowing of the pleadings, the issues in this matter are now extremely confined. On 24 February 2015, I made orders, by consent, programming this matter to a hearing after 2 June 2015. It appears that the sole issue at the hearing will be whether there is any utility in making a declaration concerning the rights of the plaintiffs (the Citic parties) where those rights appear not to be in dispute. The declarations now sought by the Citic parties (with the recent amendments marked up) are as follows:

(a) a declaration that [Citic Pacific Ltd] has not repudiated the CPOA [Citic Pacific Option Agreement];

(b) a declaration that the purported termination of the CPOA by Mineralogy and [Mr] Palmer is invalid;

(d) a declaration that the CPOA remains in full force and effect;

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 Citic Pacific Ltd v Mineralogy 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: [2014] WASC 358 (S)
Decision Date: 12 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Citic Pacific Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd, the dispute centred around the allocation of costs arising from amendments made by both parties to their respective statements of claim and defence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs, Citic Pacific Ltd, sought to recover costs incurred due to amendments made by the defendants, Mineralogy Pty Ltd, to their defence. Conversely, the defendants sought to recover costs arising from amendments made by the plaintiffs to their statement of claim.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the principles governing costs in relation to amendments to pleadings and the circumstances in which a party may be entitled to recover costs from the opposing party. The court considered whether the amendments were justified, whether they significantly altered the case's scope, and whether they were made in bad faith or for tactical reasons.

The court found that the amendments made by both parties were substantial and materially changed the nature of the proceedings. The plaintiffs' amendments expanded the scope of their claim, introducing new causes of action that the defendants had not anticipated. The court held that such amendments were not trivial and warranted an order for costs. Similarly, the court found that the defendants' amendments, which introduced new defences and counterclaims, also warranted an order for costs. The court emphasised that parties should carefully consider the implications of any proposed amendments to avoid unnecessary costs.

The court ordered that costs be paid by the plaintiffs in relation to their amendments and by the defendants in relation to their amendments. The orders reflected the court's view that both parties had contributed to the escalation of costs through their amendments and that neither party was entirely blameless.

Orders

Orders of the court

Costs orders to be made

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.