Mount Lyell Mining v Roxon Corporation Oy Summary

8 ~ 6 , 9't

JUDGMENT NO. ... ..--- ----.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY	NG 503 of 1994
GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:
MOUNT LYELL MINING
Applicant
AND :
ROXON
Respondent

cow:

SACKVILLE J.

PLACE :

SYDNEY

16 NOV 1994

DATE :

11 NOVEMBER 1994

FEDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA
PRINCIPAL REQISTRV

REASONS F0 R JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: I note that the undertaking as to damages has been proffered and the orders will be made on the basis of that undertaking.

RECORDED : NOT TRANSCRIBED

Mr Pembroke to deal with this matter at 2.15 pm today. He has	now done so. He has drawn my attention to the letter of 25 March
1987 which is annexure A to the affidavit of Mr Carr-Gregg.
He has also drawn my attention specifically to the letter of 6 May 1987 from Select Engineering Services Pty Limited to Mount Lyell which had been tendered by Mr Pembroke and was exhibit A. He has also tendered two further documents which are referred to in the particulars in the amended statement of claim. These are letters respectively of 15 August 1986 and 15 July 1987. While these are letters from Select Engineering Services Pty Limited to Mount Lyell, they do include documentation that appears to emanate from Finland and to involve representations made by or on behalf of the first respondent.
In those circumstances, the query that I raised at pages 12 to
13 of the reasons for judgment I consider to have been satisfied
for the purposes of this *e x p a r t e* application. Accordingly there is no need for me to alter the orders that I made yesterday, 10 November 1994.

In the reasons for judgment that I have just handed down, I indicated at pages 12 to 13 that it was not clear to me from the material in M r Carr-Gregg's affidavit that evidence had been adduced of the representations that were alleged to have been made by or on behalf of the first respondent that were said to induce the applicant to have purchased the machine that is the subject of these proceedings. I indicated that I would invite

I certify that this and the preceding 1 page
are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment

of the Honourable Justice Sackville.
Associate: &*-A
Dated: 16 November, 1994

Heard:	11 November, 1994
Place:	Sydney
Decision:	11 November, 1994
Appearances:	Mr M Pembroke and Mr T Davie, instructed by Allen, Allen & Hemsley, Solicitors, appeared on behalf of the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Mount Lyell Mining, the applicant, brought a proceeding against Roxon, the respondent, in relation to a machine purchased by Mount Lyell from Roxon. The dispute centred on the representations made by or on behalf of Roxon that allegedly induced Mount Lyell to purchase the machine. The matter was heard in the General Division of the Federal Court at Sydney on 11 November 1994 by Sackville J.

The court was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to show that Roxon or its representatives had made certain representations that led Mount Lyell to purchase the machine. The central issue was whether the affidavit of Mr Carr-Gregg, along with additional documents tendered by Mr Pembroke, provided enough evidence to substantiate the claims of misrepresentation.

Sackville J reviewed the materials presented, including the affidavits and letters exchanged between Select Engineering Services Pty Limited and Mount Lyell. The court concluded that the additional letters tendered by Mr Pembroke, particularly those dated 15 August 1986 and 15 July 1987, provided sufficient evidence to support the claims of misrepresentation. Therefore, the orders made previously by the court on 10 November 1994 did not need to be altered.

The court found that the additional documentation, including letters from Select Engineering Services Pty Limited and apparent representations from Finland, sufficiently addressed the earlier query regarding the evidence of misrepresentation. Consequently, the court upheld the orders made in the earlier proceedings.

Mount Lyell Mining v Roxon Corporation Oy

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established