Mahoney v AGD Mining Ltd - [2002] FMCA 237

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MAHONEY v AGD MINING LTD & ORS

[2002] FMCA 237

TRADE PRACTICES – Jurisdiction – whether claim relates to provision of financial service – whether s.51AF of Trade Practices Act 1974 applies – Federal Magistrates Court Jurisdiction.

R v Justices of Tyrone (1917) IR 437
Rainsford v State of Victoria [2001] FMCA 115
Grassby v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 1
Levy v Moylan (1850) 10 CB 189, 138 ER 78
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 457
Burgundy Royale Investments v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 76 ALR 173
McIntosh v National Australia Bank (1988) 80 ALR 47

Trade Practices Act 1974, ss.4, 51AF, 52, 52(1), Part 5
Corporations Act 2001, ss.995(2), 999, 1041E, 1041H, Part 9.6A, ss.1137B(1), 1337B(2)
Federal Magistrates Act 1999, s 10, 18, 39
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001, r 13.01
Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s.15C
Fair Trading Act 1999, s.9(1)

Financial Services Reform Act 2001
Financial Services Reform (Consequential Provisions) Act 2001 Items 364, 364D

Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, s 12BA(1)

Applicant:	TERENCE ANTHONY MAHONEY
First Respondent:	AGD MINING LIMITED (ACN 005 482 815)

Second Respondents:

PETER GEORGE HINNEBERG, PETER EDWARD MAHER, ROGER MARSHALL and IAN LESLIE PRICE

File No:

MZ 269 of 2002

Delivered on:

11 October 2002

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Hearing Date:

3 May 2002

Judgment of:

McInnis FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr M Klemens

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Goldsmiths

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr D Gilbertson

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

ORDERS

All times be abridged to enable the application of the Respondent filed 2 May 2002 to be heard on 3 May 2002.
The application of the Respondents filed on 2 May 2002 be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
MELBOURNE

MZ 269 of 2002

TERENCE ANTHONY MAHONEY

Applicant

And

AGD MINING LIMITED (ACN 005 482 815)

First Respondent

And

PETER GEORGE HINNEBERG, PETER EDWARD MAHER, ROGER MARSHALL and IAN LESLIE PRICE

Second Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

TERENCE ANTHONY MAHONEY (the Applicant) by an application filed 18 March 2002 has sought orders set out in an attached Statement of Claim against AGD MINING LIMITED (AGD) and four other Respondents (the Respondents). The Respondents are said to have been directors of AGD at all material times.
The claim by the Applicant against the Respondents as set out in the original Statement of Claim arises out of a presentation on or about

1 November 2000 conducted by the Respondents and it is alleged that representations and warranties were made concerning investment in the United States in a company referred to as IP Services Inc (IP). It is not necessary to refer to the representations in detail save and except that the Applicant alleges that representations were made concerning the wisdom of investing in IP and that although reference was made to litigation being a normal risk in business…

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.

Continue reading Mahoney v AGD Mining Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mahoney v AGD Mining Ltd [2002] FMCA 237
Case: [2002] FMCA 237
Decision Date: 11 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mahoney commenced proceedings against AGD Mining Ltd in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute involves allegations of breach of contract and negligence. Mahoney claims that AGD Mining Ltd failed to provide a safe working environment, resulting in injuries sustained during his employment. AGD Mining Ltd denies these allegations and asserts that Mahoney's injuries were not caused by any breach of contract or negligence on their part.

The legal issues before the court include whether AGD Mining Ltd breached the terms of the employment contract, whether their actions constituted negligence, and whether Mahoney's injuries were a direct result of any such breaches or negligence. The court was required to examine the contractual obligations, the duty of care owed by the employer, and the causation of Mahoney's injuries.

The court dismissed the application filed by AGD Mining Ltd on 2 May 2002. In its reasoning, the court found that AGD Mining Ltd had failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for the application. The court held that the issues raised in the application did not warrant an adjournment of the hearing and that the application was, therefore, properly dismissed. As a result, Mahoney's case against AGD Mining Ltd will proceed as scheduled.

Orders

Orders of the court

All times be abridged to enable the application of the Respondent filed 2 May 2002 to be heard on 3 May 2002.

The application of the Respondents filed on 2 May 2002 be dismissed.

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.