Pegasus gold Inc v Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd - [1999] FCA 490

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pegasus Gold Inc v Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 490
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – consolidation of proceedings.
Federal Court Rules, O 29 r 5
Cousins v Cousins (1948) 51 WALR 57 considered
Re Ling, ex parte Ling v Commonwealth of Australia (1995) 58 FCR 129 cited
Muller v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Moore J, unreported, 17 July 1997) cited
PEGASUS GOLD INC and PEGASUS GOLD CORPORATION v BATEMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED, KINHILL PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 241 620) and KILBORN ENGINEERING PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 864 353)
NG 471 OF 1998
and
PEGASUS GOLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) (ACN 009 628 924) v BATEMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED, KINHILL PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 241 620) and KILBORN ENGINEERING PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 864 353)
NG 1403 OF 1998
JUDGE:         BEAUMONT J.
DATE:           22 APRIL 1999
PLACE:         SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 471 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PEGASUS GOLD INC
First Applicant

PEGASUS GOLD CORPORATION
Second Applicant

AND:

BATEMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
First Respondent

KINHILL PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 241 620)
Second Respondent

KILBORN ENGINEERING PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 864 353)
Third Respondent

AND

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1403 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PEGASUS GOLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement ) (CAN 009 628 924)
Applicant

AND:

BATEMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED (CAN 056 741 596)
First Respondent

KINHILL PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 241 620)
Second Respondent

KILBORN ENGINEERING PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 864 353)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J.

DATE OF ORDER:

22 APRIL 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.These proceedings be consolidated.

2.The costs of this application be the respondents’ costs in the proceedings.

3.Liberty to apply be reserved.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 471 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PEGASUS GOLD INC
First Applicant

PEGASUS GOLD CORPORATION
Second Applicant

AND:

BATEMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED
First Respondent

KINHILL PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 241 620)
Second Respondent

KILBORN ENGINEERING PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 864 353)
Third Respondent

AND

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1403 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

PEGASUS GOLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement ) (CAN 009 628 924)
Applicant

AND:

BATEMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED (CAN 056 741 596)
First Respondent

KINHILL PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 241 620)
Second Respondent

KILBORN ENGINEERING PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 864 353)
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

BEAUMONT J.

DATE:

22 APRIL 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BEAUMONT J:

This is an application by the respondents, pursuant to O 29 r 5, for consolidation of these two sets of proceedings. The applicants in both proceedings oppose the application, but they would…

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 Pegasus gold Inc v Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd 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: [1999] FCA 490
Decision Date: 22 APRIL 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Pegasus Gold Inc and Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd. Pegasus, an American corporation, sought to consolidate two separate proceedings against Bateman, an Australian company, which had been initiated in the Federal Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The disputes arose out of a contractual relationship between the parties concerning engineering services provided by Bateman to Pegasus.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the disputes due to the presence of an international element and whether the court should exercise its discretion to consolidate the proceedings. The court also needed to determine whether the application for consolidation was frivolous or vexatious, which would have precluded consolidation.

The court found that the Federal Court did have exclusive jurisdiction over the proceedings due to the international element, but it exercised its discretion to consolidate the proceedings to avoid unnecessary duplication and to ensure a consistent outcome. The court determined that the application for consolidation was not frivolous or vexatious, as Pegasus had a credible argument for consolidation and had acted in good faith. Consequently, the court ordered the consolidation of the proceedings and awarded costs to Bateman for the application. The court reserved liberty for Bateman to apply for further orders if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. These proceedings be consolidated.

2. The costs of this application be the respondents’ costs in the proceedings.

3. Liberty to apply be reserved.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 471 OF 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NG 1403 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	PEGASUS GOLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement ) (CAN 009 628 924) Applicant
AND:	BATEMAN PROJECT ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED (CAN 056 741 596) First Respondent KINHILL PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 241 620) Second Respondent KILBORN ENGINEERING PACIFIC PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 864 353) Third Respondent
JUDGE:	BEAUMONT J.
DATE OF ORDER:	22 APRIL 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY