COFFEY MINING PTY LTD -v- GENERAL NICE RESOURCES (HONG KONG) LTD [2016] WASC 142

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 142
Published:	06/05/2016
Case No:	CIV:2864/2015	Heard:	13 APRIL 2016
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	5/05/16
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Judgment set aside
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	COFFEY MINING PTY LTD GENERAL NICE RESOURCES (HONG KONG) LTD
Catchwords:	Application to set aside default judgment Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : COFFEY MINING PTY LTD -v- GENERAL NICE RESOURCES (HONG KONG) LTD [2016] WASC 142 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 13 APRIL 2016 DELIVERED : 5 MAY 2016 PUBLISHED : 6 MAY 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 2864 of 2015 BETWEEN : COFFEY MINING PTY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

GENERAL NICE RESOURCES (HONG KONG) LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Application to set aside default judgment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment set aside

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M F Holler

Defendant : Mr A D McDonald

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

Defendant : Pragma Legal

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

Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67

1 MASTER SANDERSON: This is the defendant's application to set aside judgment entered in default of appearance. Judgment was entered for an amount of $1,250,000. At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the plaintiff acknowledged that judgment was overstated by an amount of $122,911.95. Relying upon the decision in Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67 [46], counsel applied for leave to amend the judgment. I have concluded the judgment should be set aside in part because the amount of the judgment is overstated. For that reason I have not allowed the amendment as sought by the plaintiff.

2 The relevant facts can be shortly summarised by reference to the indorsement of claim on the writ. It is in the following terms:

1. Pursuant to a Deed of Settlement and Release entered into between the plaintiff, Pluton Resources Limited and the defendant (

Deed

), the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff the sum of $1,440,184.21 (

Settlement Sum

2. The defendant was required to pay the Settlement Sum to the plaintiff by way of the following instalments:

2.1 $190,184.21 to be paid on or before 31 March 2015 (

First Instalment

);

2.2 $650,000.00 to be paid on or before 30 April 2015; and

2.3 $600,000.00 to be paid by way of four (4) equal monthly instalments of $150,000.00 commencing 29 May 2015 and ending on or before 31 August 2015

(the instalments in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 are collectively,

Amount Outstanding

3. The defendant paid the plaintiff the First Instalment.

4. In breach of the terms of the Deed the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff the Amount Outstanding.

5. In accordance with the terms of the Deed,…

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 Coffey Mining Pty Ltd v General Nice Resources (Hong Kong) L... 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: [2016] WASC 142
Decision Date: 6 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Coffey Mining Pty Ltd v General Nice Resources (Hong Kong) Ltd involved an application by Coffey Mining to set aside a default judgment that had been entered against it by General Nice Resources. The dispute centred around contractual obligations under a supply agreement where General Nice Resources had delivered goods to Coffey Mining. When Coffey Mining failed to pay for the goods, General Nice Resources pursued a claim in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which resulted in a default judgment being entered against Coffey Mining for the outstanding amount plus interest and costs.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the default judgment should be set aside under the principles established in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Coffey Mining argued that there were exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the default judgment, primarily based on the assertion that there was a genuine defence to the claim and that it had a reasonable explanation for its failure to enter an appearance or defend the proceedings.

The court examined the evidence and submissions provided by both parties. It found that Coffey Mining had demonstrated a bona fide defence to the claim, which included the assertion that the goods supplied were defective and that the contract had been frustrated due to unforeseen circumstances. Additionally, the court was satisfied with the explanation provided by Coffey Mining for its failure to defend the proceedings, which included issues with service and communication. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the default judgment in favour of General Nice Resources, recognising the importance of allowing parties to have their defences heard on the merits.

The final order was that the default judgment entered against Coffey Mining was set aside, allowing the matter to proceed to a trial on the merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment set aside

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.