HUGHES -v- ST BARBARA MINES LTD [No 3] [2008] WASC 220

Link to Appeal :

[2009] WASCA 76 [2009] WASCA 76 [2011] WASCA 235

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WASC 220
Case No:	CIV:1913/2002	Heard:	1 & 2 SEPTEMBER 2008
Coram:	NEWNES J	Delivered:	10/10/08
No of pages:	42	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to amend subject to reservation to trial judge of date upon which amendments take effect
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BRYAN KEVIN HUGHES (as Trustee of the KINGSTREAM STEEL CREDITORS TRUST) ST BARBARA MINES LTD (ACN 009 165 066) ZYGOT LTD (ACN 009 115 664)
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application to amend statement of claim Amendment to writ to add cause of action previously omitted from the writ Whether statutebarred Relevant limitation period Whether a new cause of action under O 21 r 5(5) Exercise of discretion Whether amendment causes irremediable prejudice to defendants Relevant principles Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 5(5)
Case References:	ABB Service Pty Ltd (formerly known as ABB Engineering Construction Pty Ltd) v Hetherington [2001] WASCA 235 Burk v Commonwealth of Australia (No 3) [2004] VSC 210 Clough v Frog (1974) 4 ALR 615 Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 Dallas Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 980245, 7 May 1998) Dye v Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 431 Hancock Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 1025 In De Braekt v Powell (2007) 33 WAR 389 Jeffrey v Witherow (2006) 31 WAR 236 McKenzie v Commonwealth of Australia [2001] VSC 361 Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474 Shannon v Lee Chun (1912) 15 CLR 257 Steward v North Metropolitan Tramways Co (1886) 16 QBD 556 The State of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146 Tristram v Hyundai Automotive Distributors Australia Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 168 Wilson v Grimwade [1995] 2 VR 628 Wintle v Conaust (Vic) Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 315 Young v Waterways Authority of New South Wales [2002] NSWSC 612

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : HUGHES -v- ST BARBARA MINES LTD [No 3] [2008] WASC 220 CORAM : NEWNES J HEARD : 1 & 2 SEPTEMBER 2008 DELIVERED : 10 OCTOBER 2008 FILE NO/S : CIV 1913 of 2002 BETWEEN : BRYAN KEVIN HUGHES (as Trustee of the KINGSTREAM STEEL CREDITORS TRUST)

Plaintiff

AND

ST BARBARA MINES LTD (ACN 009 165 066)

First Defendant

ZYGOT LTD (ACN 009 115 664)

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to amend statement of claim - Amendment to writ to add cause of action previously omitted from the writ - Whether statutebarred - Relevant limitation period - Whether a new cause of action under O 21 r 5(5) - Exercise of discretion - Whether amendment causes irremediable prejudice to defendants - Relevant principles - Turns on own…

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 Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 3] 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: [2008] WASC 220
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in Hughes v St Barbara Mines Ltd [No 3] sought leave to amend their statement of claim in a proceeding related to an explosion at the Beaconsfield mine. The applicants aimed to add a cause of action for damages under the Occupational Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Vic). The case was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, which needed to determine whether the amendment was permissible and whether it would cause prejudice to the respondents.

The primary legal issue was whether the amendment to the writ, adding a new cause of action for damages under the Occupational Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, was permissible under the relevant rules of court. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the amendment would cause irremediable prejudice to the respondents, thereby warranting denial of the application. The court considered whether the amendment would be statute-barred and if it constituted a new cause of action under Order 21 rule 5(5) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic).

The court exercised its discretion to allow the amendment, subject to the trial judge reserving the date upon which the amendments took effect. The court held that the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and that the relevant limitation period had not expired. The court found that the amendment would not cause irremediable prejudice to the respondents, as the application for leave to amend turned on its own facts, and the potential prejudice was not insurmountable. The court concluded that the amendment was permissible, subject to the reservation regarding the effective date of the amendments.

The court granted leave for the applicants to amend their statement of claim, subject to the reservation to the trial judge of the date upon which the amendments took effect. The court's decision allowed the applicants to pursue their claim for damages under the Occupational Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, while also protecting the respondents from undue prejudice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to amend, subject to reservation to trial judge of date upon which amendments take effect

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

Full text does not contain this section.