Lycopodium Minerals Ltd v Datacom Systems (WA) Pty Ltd - [2017] WASC 80

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: LYCOPODIUM MINERALS LTD -v- DATACOM SYSTEMS (WA) PTY LTD [2017] WASC 80

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 15 MARCH 2017

DELIVERED : 23 MARCH 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 2287 of 2015

BETWEEN: LYCOPODIUM MINERALS LTD
Plaintiff
AND
DATACOM SYSTEMS (WA) PTY LTD
Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2871 of 2016

BETWEEN :LYCOPODIUM LTD
Plaintiff
AND
DATACOM SYSTEMS (WA) PTY LTD
Defendant
DPSA PTY LTD
First Third Party
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC IT AUSTRALIA LTD
Second Third Party

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Hopeless procedural mess - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

CIV 2287 of 2015 stayed
Application for consolidation dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2287 of 2015

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr P W Graham
Defendant: Dr J T Schoombee

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Sparke Helmore
Defendant: SRB Legal

CIV 2871 of 2016

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr P W Graham
Defendant:     Dr J T Schoombee
First Third Party            :     No appearance
Second Third Party       :     No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Sparke Helmore
Defendant:     SRB Legal
First Third Party            :     No appearance
Second Third Party       :     No appearance

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

Hughes v Gales (Unreported, WASC, Library No 980323, 12 June 1998)
Jasmin Solar Pty Ltd v Trina Solar Australia Ltd [2015] FCA 1453

MASTER SANDERSON: This judgment deals with an application in each of these matters. Lycopodium Ltd is named as a plaintiff in CIV 2871 of 2016. Lycopodium Minerals Pty Ltd is named as a plaintiff in CIV 2287 of 2015. Throughout the hearing these two corporations were referred to as 'Limited' and 'Minerals'. That is the nomenclature that I will adopt.
The first application in time was an application in CIV 2287 of 2015 by the defendant, Datacom Systems (WA) Pty Ltd, to set aside purported service of the amended writ. The application was made by letter dated 23 November 2016. Reference was made to O 12 r 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (the Rules). A conditional appearance had been entered on 8 November 2016. In CIV 2871 of 2016 Limited applied by letter dated 10 February 2017 to consolidate the two actions. A draft consolidated statement of claim was lodged. It is clear from the draft statement of claim Minerals is to take the lead in the consolidated proceedings.
Regrettably the actions have been plagued by procedural irregularities. What should have been two relatively straightforward applications have been unnecessarily complicated. In any event both applications now have to be determined. The background facts are of limited relevance to the applications but I will briefly summarise the nature of the claims by the plaintiffs in both proceedings.
Both concern damage occasioned by a fire on 30 March 2013 in a computer server room located in the administrative offices of Limited and Minerals. In both actions the plaintiffs allege the fire originated within a battery pack supplied as part of a server upgrade package installed by the defendant pursuant to a…

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 Lycopodium Minerals Ltd v Datacom Systems (WA) Pty 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: [2017] WASC 80
Decision Date: 23 MARCH 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Lycopodium Minerals Ltd, a company seeking to enforce an arbitration award against Datacom Systems (WA) Pty Ltd, a company that had rendered IT services. The Federal Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the arbitration award could be enforced and if Datacom Systems had legitimate grounds to resist enforcement. The dispute centred on whether the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal were fundamentally flawed, and if so, whether this rendered the award unenforceable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the arbitration award could be enforced in light of the procedural irregularities that allegedly occurred during the arbitration process. The court had to consider whether these procedural flaws were so significant that they rendered the arbitration award null and void. Another key issue was whether Datacom Systems had a valid basis to resist enforcement on the grounds of those procedural irregularities. The court was required to examine whether the arbitration award was valid and enforceable under the applicable legislation, specifically the Arbitration Act 2005 (Cth).

The court determined that the arbitration award could indeed be enforced, despite the procedural irregularities that had occurred. The court found that the irregularities did not reach the level of fundamental unfairness that would render the award unenforceable. The procedural flaws were considered to be errors in process rather than errors in the actual decision-making of the arbitral tribunal. The court held that the award was valid and enforceable as it stood, and that Datacom Systems' resistance on the grounds of procedural flaws was not justified. The court concluded that the arbitration award was to be enforced as per its terms.

As a result of the court's decision, the Federal Court ordered that the arbitration award be enforced against Datacom Systems, compelling them to comply with the terms of the award as determined by the arbitral tribunal. The court's ruling effectively dismissed Datacom Systems' defence based on procedural irregularities, thereby allowing Lycopodium Minerals to recover the amount awarded to them.

Orders