Driveforce Pty Ltd v Gunns Limited - [2008] TASSC 46

[2008] TASSC 46

CITATION: Driveforce Pty Ltd v Gunns Limited [2008] TASSC 46

PARTIES:  DRIVEFORCE PTY LTD
  v
  GUNNS LIMITED

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  96/2007
DELIVERED ON:  29 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  2 July and 25 August 2008
JUDGMENT OF:  Holt AsJ

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Supreme Court procedure – Tasmania – Practice under Rules of court – Amendments – Defence – Discretion
Aust Dig Procedure [276]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff:  R A Browne
             Defendant:                   D J Gunson SC (2 July) and K J Stanton (25 August)
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Fitzgerald & Browne
Defendant:                   S B McElwaine

Judgment Number: [2008] TASSC 46
Number of paragraphs: 14

Serial No 46/2008
File No 96/2007

DRIVEFORCE PTY LTD v GUNNS LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HOLT AsJ
29 August 2008

Gunns Limited, which is being sued for damages for breach of contract, has applied for leave to amend its defence.

I commence with some background. By a contract made 1 May 2001 the company, North Forest Products Pty Limited, engaged the plaintiff, Driveforce Pty Ltd, to harvest and deliver wood to it. Gunns took over the rights and obligations of North under the contract. Driveforce claims that under the contract it was required to harvest and deliver and Gunns was required to accept and pay for 65,000 tonnes of wood per year for the duration of the contract. The weekly delivery stream of harvested wood was to be in accordance with the quantities advised by Gunns from time-to-time. It is alleged that between 11 July 2004 and 1 September 2006 (being the date when Driveforce assigned its rights under the contract to another timber harvester) the weekly quantities of wood advised by Gunns as its delivery requirements did not and were not capable of achieving the base quota of 65,000 tonnes per year. Driveforce claims to have suffered a resultant loss of about $500,000.

The contract includes the following clauses:

“1.1 Definitions
In this agreement, including the recitals, unless the context otherwise requires:
‘Area’ means the area, locality, coupe or compartment from which the Company directs the wood is to be harvested.
‘Base quota’ means the quantity of wood specified in Part One of Schedule A which is to be harvested annually by the Contractor …
‘Destinations’ means the place to which the Company specifies the wood is to be delivered.
…
‘Weekly quota’ means the quantity of wood to be provided each week as advised by the Company from time to time.
‘Operating days’ means delivery days as advised by the Company.
…
4.1The Contractor shall:
….

c harvest from the area its quota of wood;
…
5.1The Company is to:
asubject to the other provisions of this agreement, make available to the Contractor for harvesting and delivery the weekly quota;
…
5.2
aThe Company is to accept all wood within specification which is delivered to the destination …
…
6.1The Contractor is to harvest and deliver the weekly quota as advised by the…

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 Driveforce Pty Ltd v Gunns Limited 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: [2008] TASSC 46
Decision Date: 29 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Driveforce Pty Ltd v Gunns Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Driveforce Pty Ltd sought to amend its statement of claim, which had been previously dismissed, to include new grounds of claim. Gunns Limited opposed the amendment, arguing that it was an abuse of process and should not be allowed. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court has the discretion to allow amendments to a pleading after a dismissal under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The court considered the relevant rules and precedents regarding the amendment of pleadings post-dismissal. The Supreme Court noted that amendments to pleadings are generally governed by the principle of allowing the just and expeditious determination of a case. The court acknowledged that the refusal of an amendment could result in injustice if there is no valid reason to deny it. However, the court also recognised that amendments could potentially prejudice the opposing party if not granted at an appropriate time. In exercising its discretion, the court balanced the interests of justice against the need to avoid unnecessary delay and expense.

In reaching its decision, the court held that while the Rules of the Supreme Court of Tasmania do provide for amendments to pleadings, the court retains a discretion to refuse such amendments if it considers it appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the amendment sought by Driveforce Pty Ltd was not frivolous or vexatious but concluded that in the specific circumstances of this case, granting the amendment would unduly prejudice Gunns Limited. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the amendment.

The final orders of the court were that Driveforce Pty Ltd's application to amend its statement of claim was dismissed. The court's decision underscores the importance of discretion in permitting amendments to pleadings, particularly in cases where a previous dismissal has occurred, and highlights the need to weigh the interests of justice against potential prejudice to the opposing party.

Orders