Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd v GHD Pty Ltd [No 2]

Koolan Iron Ore Pty Ltd (Koolan) sued GHD Pty Ltd (GHD) over the collapse of the seawall at Koolan Island, which led to the flooding of the main pit. Koolan's claim includes both the costs to reconstruct the seawall and the delay to its operations. GHD sought to strike out Koolan's amended particulars for its Business Interruption Claim, which substantially increased the amount of damages claimed. The amended particulars were based on expert evidence filed in reply to GHD's expert evidence, and GHD argued that this was an abuse of the process.

The court considered the principles of case management and the need for a fair and just determination of the issues. The court noted that Koolan had a right to amend its pleadings without leave under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), and GHD's remedy was to apply to strike out the amendments. The court found that the amendment was to particulars of a pleaded loss, not the nature of the claim, and that the adoption of a different methodology for calculating damages was reasonable. The court also found that GHD would not be irreparably prejudiced by the amendment, as they would have the opportunity to respond to the new evidence and that the award of costs could remedy any prejudice.

The court dismissed GHD's application to strike out the amendments. The court found that the amendment was not an abuse of process, and that the proper exercise of the court's discretion was to allow the amendment. The court ordered that GHD would have the costs thrown away by reason of the amendment, as the alternative would be to shut out the possibility of a just determination of the issues between the parties. The court's decision promotes the just determination of the litigation, preserves confidence in the administration of justice, and ensures that the case is decided on its merits.