Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 12] - [2024] WASC 322

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   PALMER -v- CITIC LTD [No 12] [2024] WASC 322
CORAM:   LUNDBERG J
HEARD:   5 AUGUST 2024
DELIVERED          :   10 SEPTEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2072 of 2017
BETWEEN:   CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER
First Plaintiff
MINERALOGY PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
AND
CITIC LTD
First Defendant
SINO IRON PTY LTD
Second Defendant
KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD
Third Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 1267 of 2018
BETWEEN: MINERALOGY PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
CITIC LIMITED
First Defendant
SINO IRON PTY LTD
Second Defendant
KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD
Third Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 2336 of 2023
BETWEEN: SINO IRON PTY LTD
First Plaintiff
KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
CITIC LIMITED
Third Plaintiff
AND
MINERALOGY PTY LTD
First Defendant
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Defendant

FILE NO/S: CIV 2425 of 2023

MINERALOGY PTY LTD
First Plaintiff
CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER
Second Plaintiff
AND
EX PARTE
HELEN TERESA DILLON
First Defendant
CHEN ZENG
Second Defendant
SINO IRON PTY LTD
Third Defendant
KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD
Fourth Defendant
CITIC LIMITED
Fifth Defendant
ALLENS (A FIRM)
Sixth Defendant
FBIS INTERNATIONAL ISSUES MANAGEMENT PTY LTD
Seventh Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Sequencing applications brought by the Mineralogy Parties in four actions of a complex nature - High degree of commonality as to the principal parties, written instruments and the pleaded issues across the actions - The applications seek directions to programme the actions to consecutive trials in 2025 with the Fulcrum Proceeding having priority - Alternative directions sought to hold concurrent trials of certain of the actions - Directions include orders as to splitting cases as to liability and quantum - Applications opposed by CITIC Parties and by FBIS - Whether power to make directions - Relevant considerations to which regard should be had - Case management considerations - Prospect of inconsistent findings in relation to certain allegations - Premature to reach final conclusions on listing of all trials - Orders to be made listing most urgent proceedings for trial in 2025 with final assessment as to concurrent or consecutive trials to be revisited once further matters are known - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B, O 4A r 2(1),
O 4A r 5(2), O 4A r 5A(1), O 32 r 4

Result:

Orders made to list the 2023 MCP Proceeding for trial commencing in April 2025
Sequencing applications otherwise adjourned until early December 2024 for further consideration

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2072 of 2017

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	P J Dunning KC, H Cooper, S F Gaussen, & S Palaniappan
Second Plaintiff	:	P J Dunning KC, H Cooper, S F Gaussen, & S Palaniappan
First Defendant	:	S K Dharmananda SC & S B Nadilo
Second Defendant	:	S K Dharmananda SC & S B Nadilo
Third Defendant	:	S K Dharmananda SC & S B Nadilo

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Alexander Law
Second Plaintiff	:	Alexander Law
First Defendant	:	Allens
Second Defendant	:

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 Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 12] 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: [2024] WASC 322
Decision Date: 10 SEPTEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 12] involves a complex dispute between the Mineralogy Parties and the CITIC Parties, with additional opposition from FBIS. The litigation centres on a series of actions that share a high degree of commonality in terms of parties, written instruments, and issues. The Mineralogy Parties have applied for directions to organise these actions into consecutive trials scheduled for 2025, with the Fulcrum Proceeding to take priority. Alternatively, they seek concurrent trials for certain actions, accompanied by orders to split cases as to liability and quantum.

The central legal issues before the court were whether it had the power to make the proposed directions and what considerations should be taken into account. These considerations include the case management perspective, the risk of inconsistent findings regarding certain allegations, and the timing of the applications, which the court found to be premature for a definitive decision on the listing of all trials.

The court concluded that it had the authority to issue the directions but also noted that it was not yet appropriate to decide on the complete listing of all trials. The court opted to list the most urgent proceedings for trial in 2025, reserving the final decision on whether to hold concurrent or consecutive trials until further information becomes available. This balanced approach allows for flexibility as the litigation progresses.

Orders