Haoma Mining NL v Gibbs - [2017] WASCA 173

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: HAOMA MINING NL -v- GIBBS [2017] WASCA 173

CORAM: MITCHELL JA
BEECH JA

HEARD: 13 SEPTEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 15 SEPTEMBER 2017

FILE NO/S: CACV 28 of 2015
CACV 71 of 2017

BETWEEN: HAOMA MINING NL
Appellant
AND
BARBARA JEAN GIBBS
First Respondent
INSURANCE COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :SCHOOMBEE DCJ
Citation  :GIBBS -v- HAOMA MINING NL [No 3] [2015] WADC 57
File No  :CIV 1348 of 2007

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to appeal, application for extension of time within which to appeal, application for stay of proceedings pending resolution of related appeal - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Application for extension of time granted
Application for stay granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr J D Catlin
First Respondent          :     Ms R L Sorgiovanni
Second Respondent      :     Mr G R Hancy

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Haoma Mining NL
First Respondent          :     Sorgiovanni Legal
Second Respondent      :     Jackson McDonald

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

Gibbs v Haoma Mining NL (No 3) [2015] WADC 57
Gibbs v Haoma Mining NL (No 4) [2016] WADC 105
Gibbs v Haoma Mining NL (No 6) [2017] WADC 67
Gibbs v Haoma Mining NL [2012] WADC 127
Simonsen v Legge [2010] WASCA 238
Western Zinc NL v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd [2003] WASCA 152

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Introduction

We are dealing with two appeals:
1.CACV 28 of 2015 is an appeal against orders made by the District Court on 22 December 2014. The relevant order which is the subject of the appeal is an order that the appellant's (Haoma's) third party proceedings against the second respondent (the Insurance Commission of Western Australia or ICWA) are dismissed.
2.CACV 71 of 2017 is an appeal against orders made by the District Court on 15 May 2015. The relevant order is an order that judgment be entered for the first respondent (Ms Gibbs) against Haoma in the sum of $448,420.
CACV 28 of 2015 is listed before us for directions. On 17 February 2017, this court made an order that the appeal in CACV 28 of 2015 be stayed until further order of the court.
CACV 71 of 2017 is listed before us to consider applications in that appeal for leave to appeal and for an extension of time in which to appeal. The application for an extension of time in which to appeal is opposed by Ms Gibbs but not ICWA. Haoma and Ms Gibbs also seek an order that the appeal in CACV 71 of 2017 be stayed until a related appeal by Insurance Australia Ltd (IA), being CACV 66 of 2017, is heard and decided or until further order.

Background

Circumstances of accident

On 27 September 2003, Ms Gibbs was driving a Landcruiser…

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 Haoma Mining NL v Gibbs

Details

AGLC: Haoma Mining NL v Gibbs [2017] WASCA 173
Case: [2017] WASCA 173
Decision Date: 15 SEPTEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Haoma Mining NL brought an application to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Australia, seeking leave to appeal and an extension of time to lodge that appeal. The applicant also sought a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the related appeal. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the applicant's failure to meet the statutory time limits for filing an appeal and the circumstances in which an extension of time might be granted. The applicant argued that it had made a mistake in filing its notice of appeal, which was subsequently rejected by the Federal Court.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of the time limit to appeal. The court considered the criteria for granting an extension under the law, which required the applicant to show that it had acted with reasonable diligence in bringing its application. The court also examined whether the applicant's delay in filing the appeal notice could be excused by its mistaken belief that it had complied with the statutory requirements.

In its decision, the High Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time. The court found that the applicant's delay was not due to any mistake or misunderstanding but rather a failure to act promptly. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, the extension of time, and the stay of proceedings. The court emphasised that while the law provides for extensions in certain cases, they are not to be granted lightly and require a strong showing of exceptional circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that Haoma Mining NL's application for leave to appeal, extension of time, and stay of proceedings were dismissed. The court further ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the application.

Orders