Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd

Case [2009] WASC 120


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 Plaintiff

AND

INTERNATIONAL MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD (ACN 088 606 464)
Defendant

AND BETWEEN

INTERNATIONAL MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD (ACN 088 606 464)
First Plaintiff by Counterclaim

RD CATELAN INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 110 631 500)
Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim

AND

ALAN FRANCIS PEARCE
First Defendant by Counterclaim

TODD 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

  1. 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. 

  2. 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

  1. 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. 

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd [2009] WASC 120
Case
[2009] WASC 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pearce sought further particulars from International Mining Technologies Ltd in relation to an ongoing litigation. The dispute centred around allegations of breach of contract and negligence in the provision of mining services. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

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.