Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd v Kalra - [2009] FCAFC 57

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd v Kalra [2009] FCAFC 57
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – search order – access not granted to seized documents – application for leave to appeal – whether substantial injustice
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – access to seized documents – whether Court has discretion to grant access under Order 25B of the Federal Court Rules
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 23, s 50
Federal Court Rules, O 15A, O 25B
Bucyrus Australia Pty Limited v ANI Mining Service Limited [1999] FCA 1193
METSO MINERALS (AUSTRALIA) LTD ACN 000 197 428 and ANOR v KALRA and ORS
NSD 2014 of 2008
EMMETT, JACOBSON & PERRAM JJ
24 APRIL 2009
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2014 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
METSO MINERALS (AUSTRALIA) LTD ACN 000 197 428
First Appellant

METSO MINERALS INDUSTRIES INC
Second Appellant

AND:
RAJIV KALRA
First Respondent

MICHAEL RAUSCHER
Second Respondent

TUCKWOOD DRAFTING PTY LTD ACN 072 552 526
Third Respondent

STEVEN TUCKWOOD
Fourth Respondent

CITIC HIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 127 812 131
Fifth Respondent

JUDGES:

EMMETT, JACOBSON & PERRAM JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

24 APRIL 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.The Applicants pay the costs of the Respondents and the Third Parties.
3.Pursuant to s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 access to Part C of the Appeal Papers be limited to counsel and external solicitors for the parties.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 2014 of 2008

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:
METSO MINERALS (AUSTRALIA) LTD ACN 000 197 428
First Appellant

METSO MINERALS INDUSTRIES INC
Second Appellant

AND:
RAJIV KALRA
First Respondent

MICHAEL RAUSCHER
Second Respondent

TUCKWOOD DRAFTING PTY LTD ACN 072 552 526
Third Respondent

STEVEN TUCKWOOD
Fourth Respondent

CITIC HIC AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 127 812 131
Fifth Respondent

JUDGES:

EMMETT, JACOBSON & PERRAM JJ

DATE:

24 APRIL 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EMMETT J:

The Court has before it an application for leave to appeal from an order made by a judge of the Court dismissing an application by motion on notice dated 10 December 2008. Two prayers of the notice of motion are relevant. In order to put those prayers in context, however, it is necessary to say something about the procedural background to the primary judge’s consideration of the motion.
On 11 December 2007, orders were made pursuant to Order 25B of the Federal Court Rules for the search of premises. On execution of those orders, certain material was collected. The material included hard copy documents and images made of computer hard drives…

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 Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd v Kalra 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: [2009] FCAFC 57
Decision Date: 24 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd brought an application to appeal a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The decision related to proceedings involving claims for damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation, which arose out of a sale of mining equipment. The primary judge had dismissed the appeal and ordered Metso Minerals to pay costs to the respondents and third parties. Metso Minerals sought leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, arguing that the primary judge had erred in dismissing the appeal and in making the costs order. The respondents and third parties opposed the application for leave to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted. The court considered whether the appeal had a reasonable chance of success, whether the appeal raised an issue of general importance, or whether there was some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. The court also considered the appropriateness of the costs orders made by the primary judge. The respondents and third parties argued that the appeal had no reasonable chance of success and that the primary judge's orders were appropriate.

The court found that the appeal had no reasonable chance of success and that there was no other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. The court also found that the primary judge's orders were appropriate. The court held that the appeal was essentially a reargument of the case, and that the primary judge had correctly exercised his discretion in making the costs orders. The court held that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed, and that the Applicants should pay the costs of the Respondents and the Third Parties. The court also made an order limiting access to Part C of the Appeal Papers to counsel and external solicitors for the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The Applicants pay the costs of the Respondents and the Third Parties.

3. Pursuant to s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 access to Part C of the Appeal Papers be limited to counsel and external solicitors for the parties.

Note:

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 2014 of 2008

JUDGES:	EMMETT, JACOBSON & PERRAM JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	24 APRIL 2009
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGES:	EMMETT, JACOBSON & PERRAM JJ
DATE:	24 APRIL 2009
PLACE:	SYDNEY