Legal Research
Cases
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v CITIC Limited

Mineralogy Pty Ltd v CITIC Limited

Case [2024] WASCA 168 22 January 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   MINERALOGY PTY LTD -v- CITIC LIMITED [2024] WASCA 168
CORAM:   BUSS P
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   16 DECEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   23 DECEMBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   22 JANUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACV 64 of 2024
BETWEEN:   MINERALOGY PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
CITIC LIMITED
First Respondent
KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD
Second Respondent
SINO IRON PTY LTD
Third Respondent
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Fourth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   LUNDBERG J
Citation: SINO IRON PTY LTD -v- MINERALOGY PTY LTD [No 2] [2024] WASC 413
File Number            :   CIV 2336 of 2023

Catchwords:

Appeal against interlocutory decision - Practice and procedure - Principles for granting leave to appeal - Interlocutory order on discovery categories - Appellant seeks to broaden discovery categories - Leave to appeal refused - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 60(1)(f)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	P Dunning KC, H C Cooper & D E Fawcett
First Respondent	:	J H Kirkwood SC & T Maxwell
Second Respondent	:	J H Kirkwood SC & T Maxwell
Third Respondent	:	J H Kirkwood SC & T Maxwell
Fourth Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Robinson Nielsen Legal
First Respondent	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Second Respondent	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Third Respondent	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Fourth Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39; (1981) 148 CLR 170
Arvind Pty Ltd v Lamers [2020] WASCA 47
Attorney-General of Botswana v Aussie Diamond Products Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASCA 73
Durham v Durham [2011] NSWCA 62; (2011) 80 NSWLR 335
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Lovell (1998) 19 WAR 316
Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v DFD Rhodes Pty Ltd [No 2] [2023] WASCA 108
House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
In re the Will of FB Gilbert (Dec'd) (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318
Kelbush Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] WASCA 14; (2016) 49 WAR 374
Maek Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2022] WASC 285
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 26
Mohareb v Local Court of New South Wales [2024] NSWCA 235
NRW Contracting Pty Ltd v Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 107
Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 12] [2024] WASC 322
Roe v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 130
Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) [2001] HCA 49; (2001) 207 CLR 72
Scanlan v 2-4 McCabe Pty Ltd [2023] WASCA 135
Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2024] WASC 242
Sino Iron Pty Ltd…

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 Mineralogy Pty Ltd v CITIC Limited

Details

AGLC: Mineralogy Pty Ltd v CITIC Limited [2024] WASCA 168
Case: [2024] WASCA 168
Decision Date: 22 JANUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mineralogy Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision made by the Federal Court in relation to a dispute concerning the discovery of documents between it and CITIC Limited, the respondent. The nature of the dispute involved the scope of discovery categories in an ongoing legal proceeding, with Mineralogy seeking to broaden the categories to include additional documents that it believed were relevant to the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mineralogy was entitled to appeal the interlocutory order on the discovery categories. The court had to determine if the appeal was significant enough to warrant the grant of leave, given the principles that guide the granting of such leave. The court also needed to consider whether the appeal was frivolous or vexatious, and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify the appeal.

In its reasoning, the court held that Mineralogy had failed to demonstrate that the appeal was significant or that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of leave. The court found that the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that Mineralogy had not shown that the discovery order was plainly wrong or that the order would have a significant effect on the outcome of the proceeding. As a result, the court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The court's reasoning was grounded in the established principles for granting leave to appeal and the need to balance the interests of justice against the potential waste of resources that could result from an unsuccessful appeal.

Orders