Goldamere v Metso Minerals - [2007] NSWSC 980

CITATION: Goldamere v Metso Minerals [2007] NSWSC 980

HEARING DATE(S): 24 August 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 August 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Technology & Construction List

JUDGMENT OF: McDougall J at 1

DECISION: See para [34] of the judgment

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE – Cross-vesting application – Claim for damages caused by fire in mill in Tasmania – Whether NSW or Tasmania the "natural forum" – Whether interests of justice require transfer of proceedings – No question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987
Trade Practices Act 1974

CASES CITED: BHP Billiton Ltd v Schultz (2004) 221 CLR 400
British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Gordon [2007] NSWSC 230
Connelly v RTZ Corporation Plc [1998] AC 854
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry (2000) 50 NSWLR 357
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460
Valceski v Valceski [2007] NSWSC 440

PARTIES: Goldamere Pty Limited t/as Australian Bulk Minerals (Plaintiff)
Metso Minerals Industries Inc (First Defendant)
Metso Minerals (Australia) Limited (Second Defendant)
RCR Heat Treatment Pty Limited (Third Defendant)
The Engineering Company Pty Limited (Fourth Defendant)
ACN 009 483 694 Pty Limited t/as Haywards (Fifth Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 55049/07

COUNSEL: S A Kerr / S Mirzabegian (Plaintiff)
C D Freeman (First and Second Defendant)
Brookes (Third Defendant)
D Porter QC / J L Sharpe (Fourth Defendant)
K E Read (Fifth Defendant)

SOLICITORS: DLA Phillips Fox (Plaintiff)
Clayton Utz (First Defendant)
Lander & Rogers Solicitors (Second Defendant)
Dibbs Abbott Stillman (Third Defendant)
Thompson Cooper Lawyers Pty Ltd (Fourth Defendant)
Holding Redlich (Fifth Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
TECHNOLOGY & CONSTRUCTION LIST

McDOUGALL J

24 August 2007 (ex tempore – revised 27 August 2007)

55049/07 GOLDAMERE PTY LTD t/as AUSTRALIAN BULK MINERALS & ANOR v METSO MINERALS INDUSTRIES INC

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings relate to a fire which occurred on 21 June 2006, in something called an autogenous mill at the plaintiff's Savage River Mine in north-west Tasmania. The plaintiff is the owner and operator of the mine. The repair work (relating to cracks in the mill) is said to have been designed by the first and second defendants and to have been carried out by the third to fifth defendants, under the supervision and management of the first and second defendants.

2 The plaintiff's amended Technology and Construction List statement filed on 9 August 2007 makes it clear that the plaintiff relies on three matters:

Trade Practices Act

3 The allegations in the statement make it clear that the representations were made at the plaintiff's mine in Tasmania. Obviously, the repair work was carried out there. Thus, to the extent that breach of contract or negligence…

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 Goldamere v Metso Minerals 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: [2007] NSWSC 980
Decision Date: 24 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goldamere v Metso Minerals, the parties involved were Goldamere, the plaintiff, and Metso Minerals, the defendant. The dispute centred around a claim for damages resulting from a fire that occurred in a mill located in Tasmania. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff sought to cross-vest the proceedings from the Supreme Court of Tasmania into the New South Wales court. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether New South Wales or Tasmania constituted the "natural forum" for the proceedings and, if applicable, whether the interests of justice required the transfer of the proceedings.

The court considered various factors to determine the natural forum, including the location of the parties, the witnesses, and the subject matter of the dispute. The court also evaluated the convenience and efficiency of the proceedings, as well as any potential prejudice to the parties. Ultimately, the court found that there was no question of principle involved in the case and that the matter did not involve any significant public interest. The court held that the interests of justice did not require the transfer of the proceedings from Tasmania to New South Wales.

Consequently, the cross-vesting application was dismissed, and the proceedings remained in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The court's decision was based on the premise that Tasmania was the natural forum for the case, given the location of the mill and the majority of the witnesses. Furthermore, the court found that transferring the proceedings to New South Wales would not significantly impact the interests of justice or the convenience of the parties involved. As a result, the final orders of the court were that the cross-vesting application was dismissed, and the proceedings were to remain in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

Orders