Legal Research
Cases
Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 9]

Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 9]

Case [2023] WASC 238 29 June 2023

Jurisdiction

Discovery & Disclosure

Costs

Interlocutory Orders

Appeal

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   PALMER -v- CITIC LTD [No 9] [2023] WASC 238
CORAM:   LUNDBERG J
HEARD:   29 MAY 2023
DELIVERED          :   29 JUNE 2023
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 LTD
First Defendant
SINO IRON PTY LTD
Second Defendant
KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Applications by the Mineralogy Parties to discharge discovery orders previously made - Pleadings have changed since discovery orders were initially made - Whether appropriate to presently determine application or defer until the pleadings have been clarified and 'sufficient cause' can then be assessed by the court

Practice and procedure - Applications by the CITIC Parties to discharge separate trial orders previously made and to unify all matters - Orders made by consent - Question of costs remaining

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 4A r 5, O 4A r 5A, O 26 r 16 and O 66 r 1(1)
Supreme Court Act 1937 (WA), s 37

Result:

Orders will be made to defer the applications by the Mineralogy Parties seeking to discharge the prior discovery orders
Mineralogy Parties to pay the costs of the applications filed by the CITIC Parties to discharge separate trial orders

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2072 of 2017

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr P J Dunning KC, Mr M Karam, Mr H Cooper & Mr D Fawcett
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr P J Dunning KC, Mr M Karam, Mr H Cooper & Mr D Fawcett
First Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC, Ms S B Nadilo & Mr J R C Sippe
Second Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC, Ms S B Nadilo & Mr J R C Sippe
Third Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC, Ms S B Nadilo & Mr J R C 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 J Dunning KC, Mr M Karam, Mr H Cooper & Mr D Fawcett
First Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC, Ms S B Nadilo & Mr J R C Sippe
Second Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC, Ms S B Nadilo & Mr J R C Sippe
Third Defendant	:	Mr S K Dharmananda SC, Ms S B Nadilo & Mr J R C Sippe

Solicitors:

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

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

Bidvest Australia Ltd v Auzcorp Pty Ltd [No 2] [2017] WASCA 23.
Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd v Saraceni [2013] WASC 115.
Commonwealth v Albany Port Authority [2006]…

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 9]

Details

AGLC: Palmer v CITIC Ltd [No 9] [2023] WASC 238
Case: [2023] WASC 238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked to decide two sets of applications in the proceedings between Clive Frederick Palmer and Mineralogy Pty Ltd (the Mineralogy Parties) on one side and CITIC Ltd, Sino Iron Pty Ltd, and Korean Steel Pty Ltd (the CITIC Parties) on the other. The first set of applications were brought by the Mineralogy Parties seeking to be discharged from certain discovery obligations. The second set of applications were brought by the CITIC Parties seeking to vacate orders for a separate trial of quantum and to unify all matters for trial. The Mineralogy Parties consented to the unification applications but the question of costs remained. The court held that the applications to discharge discovery should be deferred until the pleadings had been clarified. In relation to the unification applications, the court held that the Mineralogy Parties should pay the CITIC Parties' costs of those applications. The court proposed to make orders extending the time for compliance with certain discovery categories and requiring the Mineralogy Parties to pay the CITIC Parties' costs of the unification applications.

Orders