Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 3] - [2019] WASC 424

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   PALMER -v- CITIC LTD [No 3] [2019] WASC 424
CORAM:   KENNETH MARTIN J
HEARD:   22 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   22 OCTOBER 2019
PUBLISHED           :   21 NOVEMBER 2019
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

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for categories of discovery - Categories agreed - Timing of discovery in dispute - Considerations of size of dispute and documents required to be discovered - Discovery orders made

Costs - Discovery categories application - Where parties agree to categories - Only dispute as to timing - Policy of court to encourage consensus and not punish parties for engaging in dialogue to reach agreement - Costs orders made

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Discovery and cost orders made

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2072 of 2017

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr L Livingston & Mr T March
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr L Livingston & Mr T March
First Defendant	:	Mr S Free SC
Second Defendant	:	Mr S Free SC
Third Defendant	:	Mr S Free SC

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Alexander Law
Second Plaintiff	:	Alexander Law
First Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Second Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Third Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills

CIV 1267 of 2018

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr L Livingston & Mr T March
First Defendant	:	Mr S Free SC
Second Defendant	:	Mr S Free SC
Third Defendant	:	Mr S Free SC

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Alexander Law
First Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Second Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Third Defendant	:	Herbert Smith Freehills

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

Palmer v CITIC Ltd [2017] WASC 253
Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 2] [2019] WASC 14
Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 2] [2019] WASC 14 (S)

KENNETH MARTIN J:

I am dealing with the applications of the defendants in actions CIV 2072 of 2017 and CIV 1267 of 2018 (the CITIC parties) seeking discovery in respect of disputed categories of documents pursuant to O 4A r 2 and O 26 r 7(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). By their chamber summonses filed 9 September 2019 the CITIC parties seek orders that the respective plaintiffs (Mineralogy) provide discovery on numerous categories of documents, as attached to respective chambers summonses by 20 December 2019 (the applications). Various ancillary orders including costs orders are sought.

The applications, in so far as they relate to the proposed time frame and as to costs, are opposed.
The applications seek separate orders in both matters. But given the essentially identical nature of the applications it is convenient to deal with both actions…

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 Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 3] [2019] WASC 424
Case: [2019] WASC 424
Decision Date: 21 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Palmer and CITIC Ltd, with the dispute centred on the timing of discovery in a legal case. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the parties could agree on the categories for discovery but disagreed on the timing, and if so, how the court should approach the matter.

The court considered the extent to which the parties had engaged in discussions and reached agreements on the categories for discovery. It was noted that the court encourages consensus and does not wish to penalise parties for engaging in dialogue to reach an agreement. The court emphasised that the primary goal was to facilitate the resolution of disputes through cooperation and agreement. The court also took into account the size of the dispute and the number of documents required to be discovered, which was substantial in this case.

In light of the parties' willingness to reach an agreement on the categories for discovery, the court decided to make discovery orders that reflected this consensus. The court acknowledged the importance of finding a balance between encouraging cooperation and ensuring that the dispute is resolved efficiently. The court also considered the costs associated with the application for discovery categories and made orders accordingly. The court ruled in favour of Palmer and CITIC Ltd, making discovery orders and costs orders that reflected the consensus reached by the parties.

Orders