CSC Mining Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Diamond - [2013] WADC 2

CSC MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (In Liquidation) -v- DIAMOND [2013] WADC 2

Last Update: 17/01/2013

CSC MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (In Liquidation) -v- DIAMOND [2013] WADC 2
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WADC 2
Case No:	CIV:1415/2012	Heard:	15 AUGUST 2012
Coram:	REGISTRAR KINGSLEY	Delivered:	10/01/2013
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	CSC MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (In Liquidation) (ACN 131893886) BENEDICT SCOTT DIAMOND WA CRUSHING & SCREENING SERVICES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice Application pursuant to O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court Turns on own facts No new principles
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Ansearch Ltd v Wavetech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184 Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 Osborn v McDermott (1998) 3 VR 1 Rossiter v Miller (1878) 3 App Cas 1124

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : CSC MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (In Liquidation) -v- DIAMOND [2013] WADC 2 CORAM : REGISTRAR KINGSLEY HEARD : 15 AUGUST 2012 DELIVERED : 10 JANUARY 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1415 of 2012 BETWEEN : CSC MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (In Liquidation) (ACN 131893886)

Plaintiff

AND

BENEDICT SCOTT DIAMOND

First Defendant

WA CRUSHING & SCREENING SERVICES PTY LTD

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application pursuant to O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court - Turns on own facts - No new principles

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Application allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr K Morgan

First Defendant : Ms C Bahemia

Second Defendant : Ms C Bahemia

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Morfett Legal

First Defendant : Carol Bahemia Lawyers

Second Defendant : Carol Bahemia Lawyers

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

Ansearch Ltd v Wavetech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353
Osborn v McDermott (1998) 3 VR 1
Rossiter v Miller (1878) 3 App Cas 1124

(Page 3)

1 REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: The plaintiff (CSC Mining) has brought proceedings against Diamond and WA Crushing and Screening Services Pty Ltd (WACS) pleading that Diamond, on his behalf and on behalf of WACS, on 6 July 2011 entered into a written agreement for the full and final settlement of proceedings in District Court action CIV 4039 of 2010 (the CIV 4039 proceeding).

2 CSC pleads that the settlement agreement is comprised in an email dated 5 July 2011 signed by Diamond on his own behalf and on behalf of WACS on 6 July 2011 (the 6 July 2011 email). CSC has brought an application pursuant to O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court. That application…

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 CSC Mining Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Diamond 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: [2013] WADC 2
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of CSC Mining Services Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) v Diamond, the liquidator of CSC Mining Services sought to enforce a judgment against Diamond, who had previously been a director of CSC Mining Services. The dispute centred around the enforcement of a judgment debt that Diamond owed to CSC Mining Services. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue was whether the court could exercise its discretion under Order 14 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 to grant the liquidator the relief sought, namely, the enforcement of the judgment debt against Diamond.

The court examined the circumstances of the case, considering whether the application turned on its own unique facts or if it presented a new principle of law. It was noted that the application did not introduce any novel legal principles but rather sought to enforce an existing judgment debt. The court found that the application did not require the establishment of a new legal principle but rather turned on the facts of the case, which were already known. Given that the liquidator was acting within the scope of their statutory duties and that the application was consistent with the purpose of Order 14, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the liquidator.

As the application did not require the establishment of new legal principles and the liquidator was acting within the scope of their statutory duties, the court allowed the application. The liquidator was thus granted the relief sought, enabling the enforcement of the judgment debt against Diamond.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed

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.