Fubilan Catering Services Limited v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4)

Case •

[2006] FCA 447

•

26 APRIL 2006

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Fubilan Catering Services Limited v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4)
[2006] FCA 447

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – witness statements – objections as to admissibility – motion to strike out parts of statements – rulings as to admissibility in advance of trial – strike out order inappropriate

FUBILAN CATERING SERVICES LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA), MINERAL RESOURCES STAR MOUNTAINS LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA) v COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 683 125), EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA) and COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (ACN 000 683 125), EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA) and COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM) v MOROCCO HOLDINGS PTY LTD and WILLIAM FENWICK
WAD 252 OF 2003

FRENCH J
26 APRIL 2006
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD252 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

FUBILAN CATERING SERVICES LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
FIRST APPLICANT

MINERAL RESOURCES STAR MOUNTAINS LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
(ACN 000 683 125)
FIRST RESPONDENT

EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM)
THIRD RESPONDENT

COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
(ACN 000 683 125)
FIRST CROSS CLAIMANT

EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
SECOND CROSS CLAIMANT

COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM)
THIRD CROSS CLAIMANT

and

MOROCCO HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 061 311 984)
FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT

WILLIAM FENWICK
SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE OF ORDER:

26 APRIL 2006

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

ON THE RESPONDENTS’ AND CROSS-CLAIMANTS’ MOTION FILED 10 FEBRUARY 2006, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The witness statements filed by the applicants and cross-claimants will be admissible in evidence subject to those parts of the statements which have been found to be inadmissible in the Reasons for Judgment published today.

2.The costs of the motion be reserved.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD252 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

FUBILAN CATERING SERVICES LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
FIRST APPLICANT

MINERAL RESOURCES STAR MOUNTAINS LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA)
FIRST RESPONDENT

EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
SECOND RESPONDENT

COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM)
THIRD RESPONDENT

COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
(ACN 000 683 125)
FIRST CROSS CLAIMANT

EUREST (SOUTH PACIFIC) LIMITED (INCORPORATED IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA)
SECOND CROSS CLAIMANT

COMPASS GROUP PLC (INCORPORATED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM)
THIRD CROSS CLAIMANT

and

MOROCCO HOLDINGS PTY LTD
(ACN 061 311 984)
FIRST CROSS RESPONDENT

WILLIAM FENWICK
SECOND CROSS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

FRENCH J

DATE:

26 APRIL 2006

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ON OBJECTIONS TO
PROPOSED EVIDENCE IN APPLICANTS’ AND CROSS RESPONDENTS’ WITNESS STATEMENTS

Introduction

  1. On 10 February 2006 the respondents and cross claimants in these proceedings filed a motion seeking to strike out parts of witness statements filed by the applicants and cross-respondents.  The motion is based upon various objections as to admissibility of the evidence which it is proposed to adduce from the witnesses in question. 

  2. The respondents and cross-claimants have prepared a convenient schedule of their objections, which also summarises the applicants’ response to the objections.  In dealing with the objections I will briefly state my conclusions.  There is a large number of objections. 

    Rulings on objections

  3. Statement of Bill Menim

    Par 55Objection upheld – inadmissible opinion as to state of mind of persons other than witness.

    Par 68Objection upheld as to all words after ‘Eurest’.

    Par 70Objection upheld

    Par 71Objection upheld

  4. Statement of John Atmeyok

    Par 22Objection overruled as to first sentence.  Objection upheld on second sentence after ‘I was not happy’.

    Par 23Objection upheld – this is a statement about ‘the purpose’ of the contract.  It does not purport to go to reliance.

    Par 24Objection upheld as to all words after ‘prepared a report’.

    Par 25Objection upheld

    Par 27Objection upheld

  5. Statement of William Boas

    Par 28Delete ‘we’, substitute ‘I’.  May give evidence of things said which support the conclusionary statement.

    Par 43Objection upheld – this is a statement about ‘the intention’ of an agreement.

    Par 53Objection overruled – compendious reference to statements at meeting but requires elaboration to be given any weight.

    Par 56Objection overruled but statement requires elaboration to be given any weight.

  6. Statement of Kuma Aua

    Par 20Objection overruled – explanation of his understanding.

    Par 33Objection overruled – this is explanatory of the witness’s views as a director of OTML and secretary for the Department of Mining.

    Par 35Objection overruled – statement of existence of documents which has been identified by reference to their content.

    Par 37Objection upheld – as to statement of OTML’s approach.  Statement re future role of business owners is admissible.

    Par 38Objection upheld as to last sentence.

    Par 39Objection upheld – assumes admissibility of intention of MRSM and is otherwise argumentative.

    Par 41Objection upheld – the position of the OTML Board is not a matter of inference for a witness, it is a matter of  evidence either by way of resolution or some other indicator in evidence from which the Court may draw an inference.

  7. Statement of Samson Buretam

    Objection is taken to the tender of the entire statement of Mr Buretam as he has died since signing it. His evidence may, subject to compliance with the requirements of s 67 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) (the Act), be received under an exception to the hearsay rule. I would therefore not uphold the objection to the statement on the basis simply that its maker is deceased. The question whether the evidence should otherwise be excluded pursuant to the discretion conferred on the Court by s 135 of the Act is left open at this stage as it has not been the subject of any submissions. I also leave open for further submissions the weight which should be given to any part of this statement which is not corroborated by other evidence.

    Subject to those general observations I rule on objections taken to specific paragraphs in the statement as follows:

    Par 35This is admissible as going to the state of mind of Mr Buretam.

    Par 40Admissible as to state of mind of witness but not otherwise.

    Par 52Admissible only as to recommendation of Ronald Kolalio.  The balance is inadmissible second order hearsay.

    Par 53Inadmissible.  Apparently second order hearsay. 

    Par 81First and last sentences are inadmissible as conclusionary.

    Par 83Evidence inadmissible as conclusionary.

  8. Statement of Burt Uglinga

    Par 14The second sentence is admissible as evidence of the fact of the preparation of the report but not as evidence of overcharging.  The third sentence is admissible as evidence of Mr Uglinga’s state of mind linking to subsequent action.

    Pars 18 and 19  Admissible as evidence of historical background to subsequent events.

    Pars 32 and 33  Inadmissible – no apparent relevance.

    Par 45Admissible as relevant to subsequent action taken by witness as OTML Executive Manager.

    Par 49Admissible – goes to state of mind of witness – no prejudice.

    Par 53Last sentence – inadmissible comment.

    Par 54Admissible as explaining subsequent action and not as proof of truth of comments.

    Par 58Inadmissible as conclusionary.

    Par 60Admissible – evidence of instruction to Terupo Apoki.  Admissible only to show instruction given.

    Par 61First sentence admissible as to state of mind of witness.  Second sentence admissible as to commercial reality perceived by witness.

    Par 68Admissible on basis of witness’s experience as to OTML Executive Manager.

    Par 72Admissible as evidence of the state of mind of the OTML Executive Officer.

    Par 74Admissible as evidence of the state of mind of the OTML Executive Officer.

  9. Statement of Melvin Yalapan

    Par 30First sentence admissible to prove that statement made but not as to proof of statement.

    Par 36Statement of belief admissible to prove state of mind of witness.

    Par 39Inadmissible comment.

    Par 40The words ‘and the Board’ inadmissible as hearsay and otherwise opinion of the state of mind of other members of the Board.

    Par 41Admissible only as to witness’s state of mind.

    Par 70Admissible, albeit would require elaboration to be given any weight.

    Par 75Inadmissible as expression of opinion only.

    Par 76The words ‘on the part of the Board of MRSM’ are inadmissible as opinion and/or hearsay.

    Par 82The statement of a breakdown in the relationship of trust and confidence is admissible as reflecting the state of mind of the witness.  The words ‘there has remained a lack of transparency and …’ are inadmissible.

    Par 83Inadmissible comment.

    Par 86Last sentence inadmissible comment.

  10. Statement of Madiu Andrew

    Par 51Admissible as explaining sequence of events and state of mind of witness not as to truth of report.

    Par 52Inadmissible as hearsay.

    Par 84Inadmissible in form.

    Par 85Admissible subject to production of document.

  11. Statement of Michael Baitia

    Par 22 Second sentence inadmissible.

    Par 49Inadmissible.  Requires statement of content rather than characterisation thereof. 

    Par 91Last three lines inadmissible.

    Par 92Second sentence inadmissible.

    Par 94Second sentence only inadmissible.

    Par 99Relevant to explain action taken by witness (see par 100) but otherwise not evidence of the existence of problems.

    Par 101Admissible on the same basis.

    Par 102Inadmissible comment.

  12. Statement of Lee Yekim

    Par 35  Admissible as to witness’s state of mind.
               Par 36  The words ‘because of the problems’ are inadmissible.
               Par 39  Second sentence inadmissible hearsay.
               Par 40  Admissible if letter produced.

  13. Statement of David Kaiankim

    Par 30The words ‘which dealt with problems in relation to the management of the contract by Eurest’ are inadmissible.

  14. Statement of Tony Itulam

    Par 18Admissible under s 63 as to the first sentence.  Second sentence comment inadmissible.

    Par 20Inadmissible as to form.

  15. Statement of Jerry Musolok

    Par 11Second sentence inadmissible hearsay.

    Par 12Inadmissible – no relevant representation- apparent statement of opinion by witness.

    Par 13Inadmissible hearsay. 

    Par 16Inadmissible in the form in which it is put.

  16. Statement of William Fenwick made on 1 September 2005.

    Par 41Evidence about content of document inadmissible unless supported by production of document.

    Par 43  Admissible if document is produced.

    Par 57Admissible as linked to par 56 and reflecting state of mind of witness.

    Par 77Inadmissible after the words ‘Michael Baitia’.

    Par 113Inadmissible unless document produced.  Otherwise admissible to explain next action of witness.        

    Par 128Inadmissible to the extent that it refers to the concerns of another.  Admissible in first person singular.

  17. Statement of Ronald Kolalio

    Par 11Admissible to explain recommendation but not as to the quality of the management reports.

  18. Statement of Fred Nana

    No outstanding objection.

  19. Statement of Les Fereday

    Par 38Inadmissible comment.

    Par 45Inadmissible up to the word ‘Poon’s’.

    Par 46Admissible – no apparent dispute.

    Par 67Admissible if document produced.

    Par 68Admissible if document produced.

    Par 84Inadmissible – no factual foundation has been laid for this evidence.  The fact that the witness had some relevant experience between 1980 and 2000 does not expose the factual grounding for the estimates offered.

  20. Statement of Greg McGrath

    No outstanding objections.

  21. Statement of Aleena Bird

    The greater part of this statement does not appear to be relevant.  The applicants’ response to the objections raised against it do not address the issue of relevance.  The statement will not be admitted in its present form unless relevance is first demonstrated.

  22. Statement of Francis Kaupa

    Par 27Relevance is not demonstrated.

  23. Statement of William Fenwick dated 22 November 2005

    Par 23Deleted by concession.

    Par 28Admissible.

    Par 35Admissible subject to production of documents.

    Par 41Admissible.

    Par 50Inadmissible comment and/or hearsay.

    Par 56Admissible as explanatory of witness’s recommendation.

    Par 60Admissible subject to production of document.

    Par 75Admissible as to fact of discussion.

    Par 84Admissible as to fact of discussion.

    Par 85Inadmissible as statement of opinion.

    Pars 86 to 92  Admissible as to facts of discussions.

    Par 98Sentence in parentheses inadmissible as comment – conceded.

    Par 104Inadmissible hearsay unless relevance demonstrated.

    Par 121The words in parentheses are inadmissible as comment – conceded.

    Par 122Admissible.

    Par 126The words in brackets are inadmissible as comment – conceded.

  24. Statement of Lee Yekim of 30 November 2005

    Par 6Admissible if document produced.

    Par 10Admissible subject to relevance.

    Par 11Admissible subject to relevance.

    Par 12Admissible as to state of mind of witness.

    Par 14Admissible going to state of mind of witness and subject to relevance.

  25. Statement of John Atemeyok dated 30 November 2005

    Par 5Last sentence inadmissible as comment.

    Par 7Inadmissible as argument and comment.

    Par 8Admissible subject to relevance.

  26. Statement of William Fenwick dated 2 December 2005

    Par 4 Admissible.

    Par 7Admissible subject to relevance.

  27. Further witness statement of John Atemeyok dated 30 November 2005(3025 PRF006).

    Par 5Admissible.

    Par 7Admissible.

  28. Statement of Lee Yekim dated 30 November 2005

    Par 5Admissible.

    Par 6Inadmissible comment.

  29. Statement of Bill Menim dated 30 November 2005

    Par 9Admissible as to his non-involvement in the negotiations with OTML or Eurest.

    Conclusion

  30. For the preceding reasons the various parts of the applicants’ and cross-claimants’ witness statements found to be inadmissible will not be admitted into evidence.  The respondents seek a ‘strike out’ of the various elements of the witness statements.  That is not appropriate.  It is sufficient to say that if tendered those parts of the witness statements will not be received in evidence.  An order to that effect will be made.  The question of the costs of the motion will be reserved.

I certify that the preceding thirty (30) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honorable Justice French.

Associate:
Dated:             26 April 2006

Counsel for the Applicants: Mr PE Clifford and Mr AP Rumsley
Solicitor for the Applicants: Alan Rumsley, Commerial Disputes Lawyer
Counsel for the Respondents and Cross Claimants:

Mr ML Bennett and Mr I Curlewis 

Solicitors for the Respondents and Cross Claimants:

Counsel for the First and Second Cross-Respondents:

Lavan Legal

Mr TM Retallack
Solicitor for the First and Second Cross-Respondents: Hicks Retallack
Date of Hearing: 10 April 2006
Date of Judgment: 26 April 2006
Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0