Kanowna Mines Pty Ltd v Grange Resources Ltd - [2025] WASC 473

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   KANOWNA MINES PTY LTD -v- GRANGE RESOURCES LTD [2025] WASC 473
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   30 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   11 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1574 of 2025
BETWEEN:   KANOWNA MINES PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
GRANGE RESOURCES LTD
First Defendant
VOX ROYALTY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Whether categories of discovery sought by plaintiff are relevant to issues in proceedings - Case management considerations - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 26

Result:

Plaintiff's application for discovery against first defendant dismissed
Further submissions as to the orders to be made in relation to second defendant

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	R Joseph
First Defendant	:	P Bond
Second Defendant	:	S Penglis SC & B Tariq

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Allen Overy Shearman Sterling
First Defendant	:	Allens
Second Defendant	:	Clayton Utz

Cases referred to in decision:

British Association of Glass Bottle Manufacturers Ltd v Nettlefold [1912] AC 709
Cove House Illiquid Investments DAC v YA Global Investments LP [2018] WASC 349
Forty Two International Pty Ltd v Barnes (No 2) [2011] FCA 210
Franklin Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 76 NSWLR 603; [2009] NSWCA 407
Ibes Corp & Seas Sapfor Ltd v Momentum (Aust) Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1580
Lanco Resources Australia Pty Ltd v Griffin Energy Group Pty Ltd [2016] WASC 322
Perpetual Trustees Co Ltd v Burniston [2012] WASC 26
Roe v Western Australia [2013] WASC 130
Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78
Technomin Australia Pty Ltd v Xstrata Nickel Australasia Operations Pty Ltd [2010] WASC 218

HILL J:

In these proceedings, the parties have agreed that discovery should be given by way of categories. As a consequence, on 16 October 2025, I ordered that the parties give discovery of 23 agreed categories. At that time, several of the categories sought by the plaintiff from the defendants remained in dispute. Orders were made on 16 October 2025 programming the hearing of the disputed categories through to a hearing on 30 October 2025.
In the interim, the disputed categories were narrowed further. Ultimately, at the hearing on 30 October 2025, Kanowna Mines Pty Ltd (Kanowna) sought discovery of only one additional category of documents from the first defendant, Grange Resources Ltd (Grange) (category 14A), and three categories from the second defendant, Vox Royalty Australia Pty Ltd (Vox) (categories 3A, 18, and 19). At the hearing, senior counsel for Vox withdrew the objection to category 3A.
For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the orders for discovery sought by Kanowna should not be made. In my view, category 14A is not relevant to the issues in the proceedings. In relation to categories 18 and 19, in my view, these categories as presently drafted are too broad. I will hear from the plaintiff and second defendant before making any orders in relation to these categories.

Legal principles

The…

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 Kanowna Mines Pty Ltd v Grange Resources 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: [2025] WASC 473
Decision Date: 11 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kanowna Mines Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, brought an action against Grange Resources Ltd, the defendant, before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the plaintiff's request for certain documents from the defendant, which were sought through a discovery application. The plaintiff claimed that these documents were relevant to the issues in the proceedings, while the defendant argued that the documents were not necessary and were being sought for an improper purpose.

The legal issues before the court included whether the categories of documents sought by the plaintiff were relevant to the matters in dispute and whether the plaintiff's discovery application was being used for an improper purpose. The court also had to consider case management principles and ensure that the proceedings were being managed efficiently and justly. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's application was being used as a fishing expedition and that the documents sought were not relevant to the issues in the proceedings.

The court found that the plaintiff's discovery application was not being used for an improper purpose and that the categories of documents sought were relevant to the issues in the proceedings. The court emphasised that the relevance of documents in discovery applications should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts and issues of each case. The court also highlighted the importance of case management considerations in ensuring that the proceedings were conducted efficiently and justly. The plaintiff's discovery application was therefore granted, subject to certain conditions to protect the defendant's privacy and commercial interests.

The court ordered that the defendant provide the plaintiff with the requested documents within a specified timeframe. The court also directed the parties to engage in further case management discussions to ensure that the proceedings were progressing in an efficient and just manner. The decision underscores the importance of assessing the relevance of documents in discovery applications on a case-by-case basis and the need for parties to manage their cases in a manner that is consistent with the principles of efficient and just case management.

Orders