Layne Christensen Company v Stanley
[2002] WASC 249 (S)
•31 OCTOBER 2002
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY & ANOR -v- STANLEY & ORS [2002] WASC 249 (S)
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2002] WASC 249 (S) | |
| Case No: | CIV:2465/1999 | 16 & 31 OCTOBER 2002 | |
| Coram: | MASTER SANDERSON | 31/10/02 | |
| 18/11/02 | |||
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Not applicable | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY STANLEY MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 009 117 533) ROSS FRANCIS STANLEY AZILIAN PTY LTD (ACN 008 952 681) DAVID HARPER GEODRILL LTD |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Clarification of earlier reasons |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Nil Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
DECISION : 18 NOVEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 2465 of 1999 BETWEEN : LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY
- First Plaintiff
STANLEY MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 009 117 533)
Second Plaintiff
AND
ROSS FRANCIS STANLEY
First Defendant
AZILIAN PTY LTD (ACN 008 952 681)
Second Defendant
DAVID HARPER
Third Defendant
GEODRILL LTD
Fourth Defendant
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Clarification of earlier reasons
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Not applicable
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
First Plaintiff : Mr J A Thomson
Second Plaintiff : Mr J A Thomson
First Defendant : Mr S J Lemonis
Second Defendant : Mr S J Lemonis
Third Defendant : Mr T J Carmady
Fourth Defendant : Mr T J Carmady
Solicitors:
First Plaintiff : Gadens Lawyers
Second Plaintiff : Gadens Lawyers
First Defendant : Bennett & Co
Second Defendant : Bennett & Co
Third Defendant : Williams & Hughes
Fourth Defendant : Williams & Hughes
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
Case(s) also cited:
Nil
(Page 3)
1 MASTER SANDERSON: On 31 October 2002 I published reasons dealing with the plaintiffs' application for further and better discovery against the defendants. I noted that at the commencement of the hearing counsel for the first and second defendants produced a document which effectively settled the application as between his clients and the plaintiffs. I also noted that thereafter the first and second defendants had no interest in this application.
2 In the judgment I quoted verbatim the written submissions made by counsel for the plaintiff. These submissions refer to some limited extent to the first and second defendants. When I handed down judgment counsel for the first and second defendants, who had been provided with an early copy of the reasons, expressed concern that a number of the plaintiffs' submissions referred to the first and second defendant and were not refuted. Counsel asked that I publish supplementary reasons indicating that the first and second defendants did not accept the submissions made by the plaintiffs insofar as they concerned the first and second defendants. Counsel was concerned that his client's position may be prejudiced in some later proceedings.
3 To avoid any uncertainty I agreed to do as asked by counsel. I therefore make the point that nothing in my earlier reasons suggests that the first and second defendants accept any of the plaintiffs' submissions in relation to them.
0