Legal Research
Cases
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 26 May 2023 82 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD [2023] WASCA 88
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
BEECH JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   27 & 28 APRIL 2023
DELIVERED          :   26 MAY 2023
FILE NO:   CACV 125 of 2022
BETWEEN:   HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD
First Appellant
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
Second Appellant
AND
WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD
First Respondent
DFD RHODES PTY LTD
Second Respondent
MATTHEW JOHN KEADY and DOROTHEA MARGARET CAMPBELL as executors of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
Third Respondents
BIANCA HOPE RINEHART
Fourth Respondent
JOHN LANGLEY HANCOCK
Fifth Respondent
HOPE RINEHART WELKER
Sixth Respondent
GINIA HOPE FRANCIS RINEHART
Seventh Respondent
HAMERSLEY WA PTY LTD
Eighth Respondent

FILE NO: CACV 126 of 2022
BETWEEN: HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD
First Appellant
HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
Second Appellant
AND
DFD RHODES PTY LTD
First Respondent
WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD
Third Respondent
MATTHEW JOHN KEADY and DOROTHEA MARGARET CAMPBELL as executors of the estate of DONOVAN FRANCES DUNCAN RHODES
Second Respondents
BIANCA HOPE RINEHART
Fourth Respondent
JOHN LANGLEY HANCOCK
Fifth Respondent
HOPE RINEHART WELKER
Sixth Respondent
GINIA HOPE FRANCIS RINEHART
Seventh Respondent
HAMERSLEY WA PTY LTD
Eighth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   SMITH J
Citation: WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD v HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD [No 16] [2022] WASC 432
File Number            :   CIV 3041 of 2010

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure – Where deed between various defendants in curial proceedings contains arbitration agreement – Where various issues in curial proceedings have been stayed pursuant to s 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA) and parties referred to arbitration – Where curial proceedings listed for trial and where arbitral hearing completed and decision reserved – Whether trial of curial proceedings should be deferred or adjourned to await arbitral award and resolution of issues as to enforceability of award – Whether primary judge made any appellable error in exercise of case management discretion

Legislation:

Commercial Arbitration Act 2012 (WA)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACV 125 of 2022

Counsel:

First Appellant	:	N C Hutley SC, J Kennedy & M Parker
Second Appellant	:	N C Hutley SC, J Kennedy & M Parker
First Respondent	:	K Stern SC, T Mehigan SC & L Coleman
Second Respondent	:	K R Lendich SC & S Taylor
Third Respondents	:	K R Lendich SC & S Taylor
Fourth Respondent	:	A Hochroth & D Delany
Fifth Respondent	:	A Hochroth & D Delany
Sixth Respondent	:	No appearance
Seventh Respondent	:	No appearance
Eighth Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Appellant	:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Second Appellant	:	Corrs Chambers Westgarth
First Respondent	:	Clayton Utz
Second Respondent	:	Taylor & Taylor Lawyers
Third Respondents	:	Taylor & Taylor Lawyers
Fourth Respondent	:	YPOL Lawyers
Fifth Respondent	:	YPOL Lawyers
Sixth Respondent	:	Deutsch Miller
Seventh Respondent	:	Dentons Australia
Eighth…

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 Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd 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: [2023] WASCA 88
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd involved Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd as the primary parties. The dispute centred around the case management decisions made by the trial judge in the proceedings between the parties, particularly the refusal to stay or adjourn the trial. The case was heard by the Western Australian Supreme Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the matter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's decision to proceed with the trial, without granting a stay or adjournment, was correct. The appellants, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and others, argued that the trial judge had erred in not staying or adjourning the trial on several grounds, including the pendency of related arbitrations, the risk of issue estoppel, the necessity of the arbitration awards for the trial, the potential for inconsistent findings, and the complexity of tendering certain documents. The appellants sought to overturn the trial judge's decision and obtain a stay or adjournment of the trial.

The court held that the appellants had not demonstrated that the trial judge's decision was plainly wrong or attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration. The court emphasised the need for special restraint when reviewing interlocutory decisions concerning case management, particularly those made by a case manager in the Commercial and Managed Cases list. The court found that the appellants had not shown that substantial injustice would result if the decision remained undisturbed. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's decision to proceed with the trial was upheld.

The court did not make any further orders, as the appeal was dismissed and the trial proceeded as scheduled. The decision reaffirmed the importance of deference to case management decisions and the need for substantial grounds to appeal such decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Broadly summarised, the errors that the HPPL parties contended vitiated her Honour's discretionary decision reflected their contentions that:(a)a stay or adjournment was warranted because, as a consequence of certain matters in the Rhodes proceedings having been referred to arbitration (the Rhodes Arbitration), the Rhodes proceedings could not be finally determined until those matters were resolved by the Martin Arbitration or the Rhodes Arbitration and the same was true of the WPPL proceedings (grounds 1 and 2);(b)a stay or adjournment would prevent issue estoppels arising in the Martin Arbitration and the Rhodes Arbitration (grounds 3 and 4);(c)a stay or adjournment would, in reality, not cause delay to the curial proceedings because the delivery of the award in the Martin Arbitration and the resolution of issues as to its validity and enforcement are necessary to the resolution of the curial proceedings (ground 5);(d)a stay or adjournment would prevent inconsistent findings between the Martin Arbitration and the curial proceedings (ground 6); and(e)a stay or adjournment would avoid complex issues associated with the HPPL parties' intended tender, in the curial proceedings, of the deed referred to as the Hope Downs Deed (grounds 7 to 9). Finally, the HPPL parties contended that these errors, or some of them, justify this court re‑exercising the discretion reposed in the learned primary judge, and that the discretion should be exercised in favour of the grant of a stay or adjournment (ground 10). Given the comprehensive challenge to almost all aspects of the learned primary judge's reasoning, the sheer number of grounds of appeal and alleged errors, the complexity of the issues raised by the HPPL parties, and the HPPL parties' ingenuity in shifting their forensic focus to respond to any changing winds in the litigation's landscape, it was easy to lose sight of the fact that, at bottom, these appeals concern a decision by the case manager of the proceedings not to defer a trial that has been listed for some considerable time. When attention is properly restored to the true nature of the appeal, a number of important general principles come back into focus. First, to warrant leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision such as that in the present case, ordinarily, this court must be satisfied that the decision is plainly wrong or attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal and that substantial injustice would result if it remained undisturbed.[3] Secondly, as this court has also recognised, there is a need to exercise 'special restraint' when considering challenges to interlocutory orders concerning matters of practice and procedure, and all the more so with a decision by the judge with management of a case in the Commercial and Managed Cases list,[4] as the decision in this case plainly was.[3] Litopoulos v Indiana Holdings Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 88 [11] ‑ [13] (Mitchell & Vaughan JJA); Kipoi Holdings Mauritius Ltd v Tiger Resources Ltd [2021] WASCA 186 [264] (Buss P, Murphy & Mitchell JJA).[4] Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2019] WASCA 141 [49] ‑ [50] (Quinlan CJ & Vaughan JA).