JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS
CITATION: PEARCE -v- INTERNATIONAL MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD [2009] WASC 120
CORAM: BEECH J
HEARD: ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2009
FILE NO/S: CIV 2046 of 2007
Consolidated with CIV 1268 of 2008 and CIV 1770 of 2008 by orders dated 26 March 2008 and 8 December 2008
BETWEEN: ALAN FRANCIS PEARCE
First Plaintiff
TODD ANDREW PEARCE
Second PlaintiffAND
INTERNATIONAL MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD (ACN 088 606 464)
DefendantAND BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD (ACN 088 606 464)
First Plaintiff by CounterclaimRD CATELAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 110 631 500)
Second Plaintiff by CounterclaimAND
ALAN FRANCIS PEARCE
First Defendant by CounterclaimTODD ANDREW PEARCE
Second Defendant by Counterclaim
CONSOLIDATED : CIV 1268 of 2008
WITH
:A & T PEARCE PTY LTD (ACN 093 787 369)
Plaintiff
INTERNATIONAL MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD (ACN 008 606 464)
Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application for further particulars - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application for further particulars dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
CIV 2046 of 2007
Consolidated with CIV 1268 of 2008 and CIV 1770 of 2008 by orders dated 26 March 2008 and 8 December 2008
Counsel:
First Plaintiff : No appearance
Second Plaintiff : No appearance
Defendant: No appearance
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim : No appearance
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim : No appearance
First Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance
Second Defendant by Counterclaim : No appearance
Solicitors:
First Plaintiff : Michael McPhee
Second Plaintiff : Michael McPhee
Defendant: Tottle Partners
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Tottle Partners
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Tottle Partners
First Defendant by Counterclaim : Michael McPhee
Second Defendant by Counterclaim : Michael McPhee
CIV 1268 of 2008
Counsel:
Plaintiff: No appearance
Defendant: No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Michael McPhee
Defendant: Tottle Partners
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
BEECH J:
Introduction
By chamber summons dated 20 March 2009 the plaintiffs apply for an order that the defendant give particulars of par 67 of its amended defence and counterclaim. I will identify the further particulars sought once I have put the application into the context of the pleadings in the action and an earlier interlocutory hearing.
Throughout this decision I will refer to Mr Alan Pearce, Mr Todd Pearce and A & T Pearce Pty Ltd as the plaintiffs, and to International Mining Technologies Pty Ltd as the defendant.
The pleadings
The defendant pleads at par 29 of its defence and counterclaim that, at all material times prior to 31 July 2007:
(a)both of the plaintiffs were directors and in senior management of the defendant;
(b)the defendant carried on a business developing and attempting to commercialise a technology known as the Collision Avoidance System, which is designed to prevent or reduce collisions between vehicles and equipment used in the mining industry.
Paragraphs 57 to 73 of the defence and counterclaim relate to an AusIndustry grant. Paragraph 57 pleads that in August 2004, the second plaintiff completed, with the knowledge and consent…
Continue reading Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd [2009] WASC 120
- Case
- [2009] WASC 120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the particulars sought by Pearce were necessary for the fair presentation of his case. This involved assessing the adequacy of the information already provided and the relevance of the additional details requested. The legal issue was whether the application for further particulars was justified under the circumstances presented.
The court found that the information provided by International Mining Technologies Ltd was sufficient for Pearce to formulate a response and that the particulars sought were not necessary for the fair presentation of the case. The court emphasised that the decision to grant further particulars was a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised considering the specific facts of each case. Given the circumstances, the court dismissed Pearce's application for further particulars.
The court's decision was final, and no further particulars were ordered. This conclusion reflects the court's view that the existing particulars were adequate for the proceeding and that additional information would not significantly assist in the fair conduct of the litigation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for further particulars dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.