Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Ltd & Anors - [2025] TASSC 18

[2025] TASSC 18

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Ltd & Anors [2025] TASSC 18
PARTIES:	GOSHAWK MINING PTY LTD (ACN 657 704 446) v HELLYER METALS LTD (ACN 662 575 073)
HELLYER METALS LTD (ACN 662 575 073) v GOSHAWK MINING PTY LTD (ACN 657 704 446) SAXBY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 661 570 556), and AUSTRALIA NATIONAL INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 636 343 630)
FILE NO:	3602/2023
DELIVERED ON:	28 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	21 March 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Estcourt J
CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Civil proceedings in state and territory courts – Pleadings – Striking out – Frivolous or vexatious pleading – Where the rule requires that the case cannot succeed or that there is no reasonably arguable case – Where there exists no established authority on the substantive issue – The issue is a novel one and the relevant law is still evolving – Both parties required to submit complex legal and factual arguments in relation to the application – Still exists a real question of law and fact to be determined – Would be a denial of the respondent’s rights to not have the issue heard at trial – Application dismissed.

Aust Dig Procedure [1197]

Legislation:
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas)

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Cases:
State of Tasmania v MFC [2021] TASFC 6
General Steel Industries v Commissioner of Railways (1964) 112 CLR 125
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
ASIC v Narain (2008) 169 FCR 211
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Park Trent Properties Group Pty Ltd (No 3) [2015]
NSWSC 1527
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Narain [2008] FCAFC
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Maritime Union of Australia [2001] FCA 1549 (2001)
114 FCR 472
ACCC v Maritime Union of Australia (2001) 114 FCR 472
Joye v Beach Petroleum NL (1996) 67 FCR 275

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: No appearance
Defendant: G Ng SC, J Zeeman D
Plaintiff by Counterclaim: No appearance
First Defendant by
Counterclaim: No appearance
Second Defendant by
Counterclaim: No appearance
Third Defendant by
Counterclaim: D Barnett SC, S Scott

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Groom Kennedy Lawyers & Advisors
Defendant and Plaintiff
by Counterclaim: Ashurst Australia
First and Second Defendants
by Counterclaim: Groom Kennedy Lawyers & Advisors
Third Defendant by
Counterclaim: Cowell Clarke Commercial Lawyers

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 18
Number of paragraphs:	24

Serial No 18/2025 File No 3602/2023

GOSHAWK MINING PTY LTD (ACN 657 704 446)
v

HELLYER METALS LTD (ACN 662 575 073)

HELLYER METALS PTY LTD (ACN 662 575 073)
v
GOSHAWK MINING PTY LTD (ACN 657 704 446), SAXBY CAPITAL

INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 661 570 556) and AUSTRALIA NATIONAL

INVESTMENT GROUP PTY LTD (ACN 636 343 630)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	ESTCOURT J 28 March 2025
The application

By interlocutory application filed 7 February 2025, the third defendant in this action, Australia
National Investment Group Pty Ltd (ANIG) seeks an order that…

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.

Continue reading Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Ltd & Anors

Details

AGLC: Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd v Hellyer Metals Ltd & Anors [2025] TASSC 18
Case: [2025] TASSC 18
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goshawk Mining Pty Ltd sought to have certain pleadings of Hellyer Metals Ltd struck out as frivolous or vexatious. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary dispute involved complex issues of mining rights and statutory interpretation. The central issue for the court was whether the pleadings of Hellyer Metals were frivolous or vexatious under the relevant rules, given that the substantive issue was novel and the law was still developing.

The court had to determine whether the dismissal of the pleadings would result in a denial of Hellyer Metals' rights to have the substantive issues heard at trial. The court found that, despite the novelty of the legal issue and the evolving nature of the law, there remained a real question of law and fact to be determined. Both parties had submitted extensive legal and factual arguments in relation to the application, which indicated that the matter was not without merit. The court concluded that striking out the pleadings would be inappropriate as it would deny Hellyer Metals the opportunity to have the substantive issues determined at trial.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application to strike out the pleadings. The substantive issues raised by Hellyer Metals would proceed to trial, ensuring that both parties had the opportunity to fully argue their respective positions. The court emphasised the importance of allowing novel and evolving legal issues to be heard and determined in a fair and just manner.

Orders