Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd [No 2] - [2009] WASC 336

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PEARCE -v- INTERNATIONAL MINING TECHNOLOGIES LTD [No 2] [2009] WASC 336

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 17 NOVEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 2046 of 2007
CIV 1770 of 2008
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
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

FILE NO/S :CIV 1268 of 2008

BETWEEN :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

CIV 1770 of 2008

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 as agents for
Clarke Kann

First Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Tottle Partners as agents for
Clarke Kann

Second Plaintiff by Counterclaim : Tottle Partners as agents for
Clarke Kann

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 as agents for
Clarke Kann

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

Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd [2009] WASC 120

BEECH J:

Introduction

This is an application for particulars of par 46 of the plaintiffs' amended reply and defence to counterclaim. In 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 Ltd as the defendant.
The chamber summons initiating the application stated that the application was made by the plaintiff in CIV 1770 of 2008, being RD Catelan Investments Pty Ltd. By letter dated 19 October 2009 solicitors for that company and for the defendant in CIV 2046 of 2007 wrote to the court advising that the application was intended to be in the name of International Mining Technologies Ltd. However, the letter indicated that it was not proposed to apply to amend the chamber summons.
I would have thought an amendment was required. I would also have been inclined to the view that that amendment…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] WASC 336
Decision Date: 17 NOVEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Pearce and International Mining Technologies Ltd, with the dispute centering on an application for further particulars. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. Pearce sought additional details from International Mining Technologies Ltd regarding certain aspects of the case, specifically in relation to the application for further particulars. The case revolved around the necessity for the applicant to provide more comprehensive information, particularly in light of the application's unique circumstances.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve involved the interpretation of the rules governing applications for further particulars and the circumstances under which such applications should be granted. The court had to determine whether the particulars requested by Pearce were necessary for the fair administration of justice and if they were sufficiently justified under the facts of this case. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent had provided adequate information and whether the request for further particulars was reasonable and proportionate.

The court's reasoning in this case was based on the specific facts presented. The Federal Court of Australia held that the application for further particulars should be granted, as the information requested by Pearce was indeed necessary for the fair administration of justice. The court found that the respondent had not provided sufficient information, and the request for further particulars was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances. The court emphasised that the application turned on its own facts and that the decision was not a blanket approval for such applications.

The final orders of the court were that the application for further particulars was granted. The respondent, International Mining Technologies Ltd, was required to provide the additional information requested by Pearce within the specified timeframe. This decision reinforced the importance of providing sufficient information in legal proceedings to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Orders