Micon Mining and Construction Products GmbH & Co KG v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd

The case of Micon Mining and Construction Products GmbH & Co KG v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Micon Mining, and the defendant, Macmahon Mining Services. The plaintiff sought leave to amend the writ to include additional causes of action that were not initially included in the writ served outside Australia. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue in this case was whether the plaintiff could amend the writ to include additional causes of action that were not initially included in the writ served outside Australia. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff could rely on O 10 r 1(1) or r 2 RSC to amend the writ and whether the plaintiff had established that all the claims in the proceedings fell within the relevant category of O 10 RSC.

The court held that the plaintiff must establish that all of the claims in the proceedings fall within O 10 r 1(1) or r 2 RSC. The court also held that the plaintiff will not be allowed to proceed with causes of action for which service outside Australia cannot be sustained under O 10 RSC. The court held that the plaintiff bears the onus of proof in establishing the jurisdictional gateway - both on the initial ex parte application for leave and subsequently on any inter partes hearing to set aside the writ and service of the writ outside of Australia. The court held that being within a category may be characterised as a jurisdictional fact and that attention must be given to the nature and content of the requisite jurisdictional fact for each head of jurisdiction. The court held that where jurisdiction depends on particular facts, or a particular state of affairs, a challenge to jurisdiction can only be resisted by establishing the facts on which it depends, and these must be established on the balance of probabilities in light of all the evidence advanced in the proceedings concerning jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the court held that the plaintiff could not amend the writ to include additional causes of action that were not initially included in the writ served outside Australia. The court held that the plaintiff had not established that all the claims in the proceedings fell within the relevant category of O 10 RSC. The court held that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proof in establishing the jurisdictional gateway. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to amend the writ.