Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 4] - [2022] WASC 292

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   PALMER -v- CITIC LTD [No 4] [2022] WASC 292
CORAM:   KENNETH MARTIN J
HEARD:   19 AUGUST 2022
DELIVERED          :   31 AUGUST 2022
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 - Case management - Strategic conference - Pleading, discovery and timetabling issues for future trials

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Directions issue in both actions

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2072 of 2017

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr P Dunning QC & Mr M Karam
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr P Dunning QC & Mr M Karam
First Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Mr J Sippe
Second Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Mr J Sippe
Third Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Mr J Sippe

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Robinson Nielsen Legal
Second Plaintiff	:	Robinson Nielsen Legal
First Defendant	:	Allens
Second Defendant	:	Allens
Third Defendant	:	Allens

CIV 1267 of 2018

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr P Dunning QC & Mr M Karam
First Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Mr J Sippe
Second Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Mr J Sippe
Third Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC & Mr J Sippe

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Robinson Nielsen Legal
First Defendant	:	Allens
Second Defendant	:	Allens
Third Defendant	:	Allens

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

Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [2019] WASCA 89
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [2020] WASC 40
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [No 16] [2017] WASC 340
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [No 2] [2021] WASCA 105

KENNETH MARTIN J:

March 2022 timetabling

I am dealing with the parties' rival submitted minutes of proposed orders in these two actions - which are being case managed together and have been programmed for a trial hearing together in the future at a time yet to be fixed.
Notwithstanding a respective commencement of the two actions in 2017 and 2018, there remain interlocutory issues in dispute as between the parties.
That is the position in August 2022 despite my numerous prior interlocutory orders and following multiple directions hearings and strategic conferences under my case management of these actions since their inception.
At the penultimate strategic conference convened between the parties held in March 2022, the progression towards a fixing of trial dates was thwarted then - by the as foreshadowed applications as then indicated by the three CITIC defendants to apply for permanent stays of both actions - on the basis that they are said to be either abuses of process by the plaintiffs, or…

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 4]

Details

AGLC: Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 4] [2022] WASC 292
Case: [2022] WASC 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia was presented with two consolidated actions, Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 4] and Mineralogy Pty Ltd v CITIC Ltd, involving Clive Palmer, Mineralogy Pty Ltd, CITIC Ltd, Sino Iron Pty Ltd, and Korean Steel Pty Ltd. The dispute primarily revolves around allegations of abuse of process and Anshun estoppel raised by the CITIC defendants, seeking permanent stays or dismissals of the plaintiffs' actions. The legal issues before the court included whether the actions should be stayed or dismissed due to alleged abuse of process or Anshun estoppel, and the scheduling of future trials. Justice Kenneth Martin assessed the pleadings and the state of discovery, noting that the parties had significant disagreements over these matters. The court issued directions for further amendments to pleadings and set timelines for resolving discovery and privilege issues, emphasizing the need for more informed conferral between the parties. The court also highlighted its potential disqualification from hearing the trials due to prior involvement in related litigation. The final orders will be issued 48 hours after the publication of the reasons, barring any written objections.

Orders