HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD [2012] WASCA 216 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASCA 216 (S)
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:43/2011	Heard:	12-15 JUNE 2012, 12 DECEMBER 2012 AND ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	McLURE P NEWNES JA LE MIERE J	Delivered:	27/02/13
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed Cross-appeal allowed in part
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Procedure Orders giving effect to reasons Dispute about terms and effect of declaration Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 216

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD -v- WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD [2012] WASCA 216 (S) CORAM : McLURE P

NEWNES JA

LE MIERE J

HEARD : 12-15 JUNE 2012, 12 DECEMBER 2012 AND ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 27 FEBRUARY 2013 FILE NO/S : CACV 43 of 2011 BETWEEN : HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MURRAY J

Citation : WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED -v- HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED [No 9] [2010] WASC 44

File No : CIV 1279 of 2001

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Procedure - Orders giving effect to reasons - Dispute about terms and effect of declaration - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Cross-appeal allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S Finch SC & Mr S Rushton SC & Mr C Bova

Respondent : Mr R Smith SC & Mr R Brender

Solicitors:

Appellant : Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Respondent : Lavan Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 216

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The court published its reasons for judgment in this matter on 30 October 2012: Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 216. On the date of publication, the appellant sought further time to consider its position in relation to the orders sought by the respondent in a minute it provided to the court (the respondent's minute).

2 On 30 October 2012 the President ordered that the appellant file and serve written submissions relating to the proposed orders by 13 November 2012 and that the respondent file and serve answering written submissions by 20 November 2012. The appellant's request that it be permitted to file written submissions in reply was refused.

3 The written submissions filed by the parties (the first set of written submissions) disclosed that the only area of dispute related to the terms of the declaration the subject of ground 11 of the cross-appeal: Hancock [316] - [319].

4 After the filing of the first set of written submissions there was a flurry of correspondence…

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: [2012] WASCA 216 (S)
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (the appellant) brought an appeal against Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (the respondent) in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The case was heard and decided by the Court of Appeal. The primary dispute centred around the interpretation and effect of a declaration sought by the respondent, which was intended to define the rights and obligations of the parties under a 1984 agreement and a subsequent 1987 agreement. The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the declaration proposed by the respondent should be amended to reflect specific interpretations of the 1984 and 1987 agreements, particularly concerning the exclusion of royalties and premiums from the respondent's rights. The Court of Appeal considered the arguments presented by both parties regarding the proposed terms of the declaration. The court noted that neither party had explicitly addressed the scope or effect of the declaration during the trial or appeal, leading the President to conclude that certain amendments were necessary to clarify the declaration's terms. The Court of Appeal ultimately decided that the declaration should be amended to reflect the court's interpretation of the 1984 and 1987 agreements, particularly with respect to the exclusion of royalties and premiums. The court dismissed the appeal and allowed certain grounds of the cross-appeal, resulting in the issuance of a declaration that defined the rights of the respondent more precisely. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, and that the respondent pay the cross-appellant's costs of the cross-appeal.

Orders