Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 425 Hearing dates: On the papers Decision date: 09 December 2014 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [33];
Barrett JA at [34]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed in part, in relation to the Channar area, but dismissed in relation to Eastern Range.
(2) Orders 1 to 4 and 7 of the Court below be set aside and in lieu thereof:
(a) Judgment for the first respondent against the appellant in the sum of $89,397,091.73, comprising:
(i) $69,284,921.27; and
(ii) $20,112,170.46 in interest.
(b) Judgment for the second respondent against the appellant in the sum of $89,397,091.73, comprising:
(i) $69,284,921.27; and
(ii) $20,112,170.46 in interest.
(c) The first respondent's claim against the appellant in respect of the Channar area is dismissed.
(d) The second respondent's cross-claim against the appellant in respect of the Channar area is dismissed.
(3) Note that the appellant was entitled to restitutionary payments from each of the respondents of $41,419,165.10 and that the respondents have made those payments.
(4) Judgment against each of the respondents in the amount of $3,365,732.70 representing the appellant's entitlement to interest on those restitutionary payments.
(5) Note that the Court does not make any order as to the costs of the appeal.
(6) Order the appellant to pay 50% of the first instance costs of the first respondent and the second respondent.
(7) Note that the cross-appeals filed by the first respondent and second respondent are withdrawn and that the Court does not make any order as to the costs of them.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: INTEREST - judgments - payments made to plaintiffs under first instance judgment that was reversed on appeal - amounts repaid by plaintiffs after appeal decision - claims by defendant for interest on judgment amounts from the time when paid to the plaintiffs until the time repaid - whether interest should be awarded at pre-judgment or post-judgment rate
COSTS - costs at first instance - plaintiffs ordinarily entitled to order for payment of the whole of their costs notwithstanding that they might not have recovered the whole of the amount they claimed - defendant/appellant succeeded in defeating a distinct part of claim against it - defendant/appellant to pay 50 per cent of plaintiffs'/respondents' costs at first instanceLegislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 98, 100, 101
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 6.12, 36.7, 42.1, 51.19, 51.54Cases Cited: Bostik Australia Pty Ltd v Liddiard (No…
Continue reading Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (No...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 425
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 425
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the defendant was entitled to an award of interest on the restitutionary payments made by it to the plaintiffs. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether such interest should be awarded at a pre-judgment or post-judgment rate, and to what extent the costs of the proceedings at first instance should be allocated between the parties, given that the defendant had succeeded in defeating a distinct part of the claim against it.
The Court allowed the appeal in part, in relation to the Channar area, but dismissed it in relation to Eastern Range. The Court set aside certain orders from the lower court and entered judgment for the respondents against the appellant, including principal sums and interest. Crucially, the Court noted that the appellant was entitled to restitutionary payments from each respondent, which had been made, and entered judgment against each respondent for interest on those restitutionary payments. The Court made no order as to the costs of the appeal but ordered the appellant to pay 50% of the first instance costs of the respondents.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed in part, in relation to the Channar area, but dismissed in relation to Eastern Range.
(2) Orders 1 to 4 and 7 of the Court below be set aside and in lieu thereof:
(a) Judgment for the first respondent against the appellant in the sum of $89,397,091.73, comprising:
(i) $69,284,921.27; and
(ii) $20,112,170.46 in interest.
(b) Judgment for the second respondent against the appellant in the sum of $89,397,091.73, comprising:
(i) $69,284,921.27; and
(ii) $20,112,170.46 in interest.
(c) The first respondent's claim against the appellant in respect of the Channar area is dismissed.
(d) The second respondent's cross-claim against the appellant in respect of the Channar area is dismissed.
(3) Note that the appellant was entitled to restitutionary payments from each of the respondents of $41,419,165.10 and that the respondents have made those payments.
(4) Judgment against each of the respondents in the amount of $3,365,732.70 representing the appellant's entitlement to interest on those restitutionary payments.
(5) Note that the Court does not make any order as to the costs of the appeal.
(6) Order the appellant to pay 50% of the first instance costs of the first respondent and the second respondent.
(7) Note that the cross-appeals filed by the first respondent and second respondent are withdrawn and that the Court does not make any order as to the costs of them.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.