Pierre v Anvil Mining Management NL

[2008] WASC 30

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   PIERRE -v- ANVIL MINING MANAGEMENT NL [2008] WASC 30

CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD:   27 FEBRUARY 2008

DELIVERED          :   27 FEBRUARY 2008

PUBLISHED           :  11 MARCH 2008

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2103 of 2007

BETWEEN:   KUNDA MUSOPELO PIERRE

First Applicant

KALINGA VICTORINE LWANZA as personal representative of MASOKO SOPHIE KABANGO (Dec)
Second Applicant

ROGER NWAMBA ILUNGA
Third Applicant

CHAMPO ARNOLD MUMBA
Fourth Applicant

CLEMENTINE KYUNGU NDUBIE MUKEYA as personal representative of JOSEPH KAPYA KAYOMBO (Dec)
Fifth Applicant

JEAN CLAUDE MWAMBA MUKALAY as personal representative of AUGUSTINE TABU MWAMBA (Dec)
Sixth Applicant

JEANNE MASENGO SHIKWILA on her own behalf and as personal representative of STANISLAS KABWEBWE KITANIKA (Dec)
Seventh Applicant

KASUNGAMI STEPHANIE KAPIA as personal representative of LWEMBE KAPIA (Dec)
Eighth Applicant

MISEMPO IDA NGOMBE as personal representative of MWILADOWE NDEKANDEKA SANDUKU (Dec)
Ninth Applicant

KASUNGAMI STEPHANIE KAPIA as personal representative of MWANGE KAPIA (Dec)
Tenth Applicant

NGOY EZEKIEL LUNE WA YUMBA
Eleventh Applicant

LWEMBE NETI KIMPWA as personal representative of SHIMPUNDU PILATI (Dec)
Twelfth Applicant

BANZA BRANJA N'KULU
Thirteenth Applicant

NGONGWE DAVID KISALA as personal representative of NGONGWE DAVID +KISALA (Dec)
Fourteenth Applicant

MULIMBI EMMAN MULIMBI as personal representative of NYEMBO ELISE MULIMBI (Dec)
Fifteenth Applicant

CHRISTOPHE MUSINGE SAMBA
Sixteenth Applicant

MUKALAY ALBERT KITANIKA
Seventeenth Applicant

NKULU NORBERT BUSUMA
Eighteenth Applicant

YUMBA YENZA as personal representative of BONSTON MUILAMBUE (Dec)
Nineteenth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA
Twentieth Applicant

JACQUELINE MUKALAY
Twenty­First Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA JNR (Dec)
Twenty-Second Applicant

WILLY MUTONDO
Twenty-Third Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MONGA DONATIEN WA MONGA (Dec)
Twenty-Fourth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MUSONDA JENOVIC CONGO (Dec)
Twenty-Fifth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MWIKA FABIOLA MUSONDA (Dec)
Twenty-Sixth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KYUNGU DAMIEN MURELWA (Dec)
Twenty-Seventh Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KALUMBA FRANCAISE KAPONDA (Dec)
Twenty-Eighth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KALEMBE ABBOTINE KAPULO (Dec)
Twenty-Ninth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MUSONDA GIRES CONGO (Dec)
Thirtieth Applicant

IRENE NUNBI WA NUNBI
Thirty-First Applicant

BENOIT KISHINBA NAKOBA
Thirty-Second Applicant

DENISE NAUBYE KASENGESHA
Thirty-Third Applicant

PHILIPPE KASONGO LUPITALO
Thirty-Fourth Applicant

MATTHIEU KALUNGA KILOMBO
Thirty-Fifth Applicant

JEAN PAUL NGOBA MULENGA
Thirty-Sixth Applicant

LOUISA HARI INAONEKANA
Thirty-Seventh Applicant

JACQUELINE KASUBA KYONBA
Thirty-Eighth Applicant

PROSJENINE KYOMBA LUKWESA
Thirty-Ninth Applicant

ASTRIDO KISHINBA NDOBA

Fortieth Applicant

CECILE KABELWE KALWA
Forty-First Applicant

CHRISOPHE KAZENBA KANBI
Forty-Second Applicant

BIBI MUTONBO JULUNGA
Forty-Third Applicant

ELIZABETH KIPITA KALONDA
Forty-Fourth Applicant

LEONTINE MITONGA MWABA on her own behalf and as next friend of MWABO MAMGWE MWABA and KAOMBE FRANCISCO MWABA
Forty-Fifth Applicant

IMELAE MWELWA MWAPE
Forty-Sixth Applicant

ASTRIDA KABAGO KYABLA
Forty-Seventh Applicant

ALPHONSHIA MWANTO LUKWOSA
Forty-Eighth Applicant

STANY KABWE KITANIKA on her own behalf and as personal representative of JEANWE MASENGO SHIKWILA (Dec)
Forty-Ninth Applicant

CHOTILDE MWANSA KASHEBECE
Fiftieth Applicant

CHARLOTTE LUNUNA MAPESA
Fifty-First Applicant

FRANCOISE KASONGO KYUNGU
Fifty-Second Applicant

VERONIQUE MUKEYA MUKALAY
Fifty-Third Applicant

JACQUELINE MPWETO MITONGA
Fifty-Fourth Applicant

LOUISE MWELWA KABULO
Fifty-Fifth Applicant

EVARISTE KABULO KYUPE
Fifty-Sixth Applicant

FAUSTONE MWABWE KABULO
Fifty-Seventh Applicant

BEATRICE KABEYA MIKODBE
Fifty-Eighth Applicant

JEANINE KIREGONA KYENBE
Fifty-Ninth Applicant

ADELE MWAYUMA FARAI on her own behalf and as personal representative of ULIMWENGU NOMBELE WILLY and UMA ULIMWENGU PASCAL
Sixtieth Applicant

MIREILLE KITENGE KALONDA
Sixty-First Applicant

AND

ANVIL MINING MANAGEMENT NL (ACN 060 478 962)
First Respondent

ANVIL MINING LTD (ARBN 107 912 550)
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out parts of affidavit and to set aside subpoena - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application refused

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant                  :    Mr J R C Gordon

Second Applicant             :    Mr J R C Gordon

Third Applicant                :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fourth Applicant               :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifth Applicant                  :    Mr J R C Gordon

Sixth Applicant                 :    Mr J R C Gordon

Seventh Applicant             :    Mr J R C Gordon

Eighth Applicant               :    Mr J R C Gordon

Ninth Applicant                 :    Mr J R C Gordon

Tenth Applicant                :    Mr J R C Gordon

Eleventh Applicant            :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twelfth Applicant             :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirteenth Applicant          :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fourteenth Applicant         :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifteenth Applicant            :    Mr J R C Gordon

Sixteenth Applicant           :    Mr J R C Gordon

Seventeenth Applicant       :    Mr J R C Gordon

Eighteenth Applicant         :    Mr J R C Gordon

Nineteenth Applicant         :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twentieth Applicant          :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty­First Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Second Applicant  :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Third Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Fourth Applicant   :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Fifth Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Sixth Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Seventh Applicant :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Eighth Applicant    :    Mr J R C Gordon

Twenty-Ninth Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirtieth Applicant            :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-First Applicant        :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Second Applicant    :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Third Applicant      :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Fourth Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Fifth Applicant       :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Sixth Applicant       :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Seventh Applicant    :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Eighth Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Thirty-Ninth Applicant      :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fortieth Applicant             :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-First Applicant        :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Second Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Third Applicant       :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Fourth Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Fifth Applicant        :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Sixth Applicant        :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Seventh Applicant    :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Eighth Applicant      :    Mr J R C Gordon

Forty-Ninth Applicant       :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fiftieth Applicant              :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-First Applicant          :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Second Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Third Applicant        :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Fourth Applicant      :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Fifth Applicant         :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Sixth Applicant         :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Seventh Applicant     :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Eighth Applicant       :    Mr J R C Gordon

Fifty-Ninth Applicant        :    Mr J R C Gordon

Sixtieth Applicant              :    Mr J R C Gordon

Sixty-First Applicant         :    Mr J R C Gordon

First Respondent              :    Mr C L Zelestis QC & Mr J A Thomson

Second Respondent          :    Mr C L Zelestis QC & Mr J A Thomson

Solicitors:

First Applicant                  :    Slater & Gordon

Second Applicant             :    Slater & Gordon

Third Applicant                :    Slater & Gordon

Fourth Applicant               :    Slater & Gordon

Fifth Applicant                  :    Slater & Gordon

Sixth Applicant                 :    Slater & Gordon

Seventh Applicant             :    Slater & Gordon

Eighth Applicant               :    Slater & Gordon

Ninth Applicant                 :    Slater & Gordon

Tenth Applicant                :    Slater & Gordon

Eleventh Applicant            :    Slater & Gordon

Twelfth Applicant             :    Slater & Gordon

Thirteenth Applicant          :    Slater & Gordon

Fourteenth Applicant         :    Slater & Gordon

Fifteenth Applicant            :    Slater & Gordon

Sixteenth Applicant           :    Slater & Gordon

Seventeenth Applicant       :    Slater & Gordon

Eighteenth Applicant         :    Slater & Gordon

Nineteenth Applicant         :    Slater & Gordon

Twentieth Applicant          :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty­First Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Second Applicant  :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Third Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Fourth Applicant   :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Fifth Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Sixth Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Seventh Applicant :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Eighth Applicant    :    Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Ninth Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Thirtieth Applicant            :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-First Applicant        :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Second Applicant    :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Third Applicant      :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Fourth Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Fifth Applicant       :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Sixth Applicant       :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Seventh Applicant    :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Eighth Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Ninth Applicant      :    Slater & Gordon

Fortieth Applicant             :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-First Applicant        :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Second Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Third Applicant       :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Fourth Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Fifth Applicant        :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Sixth Applicant        :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Seventh Applicant    :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Eighth Applicant      :    Slater & Gordon

Forty-Ninth Applicant       :    Slater & Gordon

Fiftieth Applicant              :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-First Applicant          :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Second Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Third Applicant        :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Fourth Applicant      :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Fifth Applicant         :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Sixth Applicant         :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Seventh Applicant     :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Eighth Applicant       :    Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Ninth Applicant        :    Slater & Gordon

Sixtieth Applicant              :    Slater & Gordon

Sixty-First Applicant         :    Slater & Gordon

First Respondent              :    Clayton Utz

Second Respondent          :    Clayton Utz

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

Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 2) (2000) 107 FCR 44

1. MASTER SANDERSON:  This matter began life as an application by the applicants for pre‑action discovery.  That application was supported by an affidavit of Richard Meeran sworn 12 July 2007.  Before the application could be heard, the respondents issued subpoenas seeking certain documents from the applicants' solicitors.  The respondents also issued an application for security for costs - not security for costs of giving discovery, but security for costs of the application for pre‑action discovery.  They also raised objections to large parts of Mr Meeran's affidavit.

2. The applicants responded by making application to set aside the subpoenas.  As part of that application, the applicants applied to strike out parts of the affidavit of Gregory James Carter affirmed 15 February 2008.  In particular, the applicants sought to strike out reference to a document entitled 'Agreement on Conditional Legal Fees' which appeared as annexure GJC3 to the affidavit.

3. At the conclusion of the hearing, I advised the parties that I would not strike out parts of the affidavit complained of by the applicants and I would not set aside the subpoenas.  The matter was then adjourned to allow the applicants and, more particularly, their solicitors, to comply with the terms of the subpoena.  I indicated to the parties that I would provide reasons in relation to the two matters I determined.  These are those reasons.

4. In October 2004, there was a military battle in Kilwa, a town in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between government and rebel troops.  A subsidiary of the respondents, Anvil Mining Congo SARL (AMC), carries on mining operations in the vicinity of Kilwa.  The application for pre‑action discovery is, according to the applicants' submissions, made in order to determine whether the applicants can obtain evidence to support a case in Western Australia that the respondents facilitated government troops in carrying out alleged killings, torture, imprisonment, assault and looting.  The applicants are seeking evidence concerning the role of a director of each of the respondents and a person who was AMC's general manager and said to be the deputy general manager of the first respondent in facilitating the transportation of government troops to Kilwa.  The applicants say they are seeking to establish whether persons associated with the respondents knew that vehicles owned by AMC were provided by AMC to assist the government troops and whether government troops were brought to the vicinity of Kilwa on the return journey of an aircraft chartered by AMC to take employees away from the area of conflict.  It would seem that the basis of the claim in Western Australia would be a breach of the respondents' duty of care to refrain from providing assistance to the government troops.

5. It is not in dispute that the applicants are impecunious citizens of the DRC.  They are civilians who allegedly suffered loss and damage in the course of the conflict between government and rebel troops.  Quite what the loss and damage suffered by the applicants might be is not, at present, clear, and is not relevant to the present enquiry.

6. The subpoena issued by the respondents is directed to the law firm of Slater & Gordon Ltd.  Slater & Gordon Ltd are the solicitors acting for the applicants.  Without quoting in detail from the list of documents the respondents would have Slater & Gordon Ltd produce, it is sufficient if I say that the documents concerned relate to the financial relationship between the applicants and their solicitors.  Essentially, the respondents want to know how the applicants' solicitors are to remunerated, the extent to which the solicitors have control over the proceedings and what benefits would flow to the solicitors if any action is successful.  Counsel for the respondents made it plain during the course of his submissions that the respondents wish to explore the possibility of preventing Slater & Gordon Ltd acting for the applicants on the basis that the arrangement they have with the applicants involves maintenance or champerty or is otherwise an abuse of the court's processes.

7. What has given rise to this line of enquiry is the Agreement on Conditional Legal Fees (Agreement) which I mentioned earlier, and which has come into the hands of the respondents' solicitors.  It would appear that the document came into the possession of the respondents' solicitors as a consequence of actions taken in the DRC.  A copy of the Agreement was lodged with the Military Tribunal in the DRC and has been properly obtained from that body.  The evidence suggests that there is no impediment to the respondents using a copy of the Agreement either in proceedings in the DRC or elsewhere.  However, it is not necessary for me to determine this question at present.  For the moment, it only need be noted that the respondents' solicitors have a copy of the Agreement and it is annexed to the affidavit.

8. It was the applicants' position that the Agreement was privileged and that as privilege had not been waived, it could not be used.  During the course of the hearing, it was admitted by counsel for the applicants that the document annexed to Mr Carter's affidavit was indeed a copy of the Agreement entered into between the applicants and Slater & Gordon Ltd.  The applicants' claim of privilege is answered by what was said by Lindgren J in Cook v Pasminco Ltd (No 2) (2000) 107 FCR 44. His Honour said:

   In my opinion, generally, an agreement between solicitors and their prospective client as to the terms of retainer of the solicitors does not attract … legal professional privilege …: the agreement is not created for the dominant purpose of the giving or receiving of legal advice or of being used in existing or anticipated legal proceedings.  A costs agreement is a bundle of mutual and reciprocal commitments between intending solicitor and client.  It is entered into by parties whose interests are, at the time, generally opposed.  Generally speaking, the solicitors are entitled to negotiate the terms of the agreement in their own interests.  Once it is appreciated that a costs agreement is an agreement between persons who are about to enter into the relationship of solicitor and client, there is no obvious reason why such an agreement, as a class of document, should be the subject of legal professional privilege (53).

9. It may be that parts of the Agreement where the solicitors express an opinion about the clients' prospects of success would be privileged.  This was not a point taken up by counsel for the applicants during his submissions.  However, it can be left to another day.  For the purposes of the application to set aside the subpoena, in my view the Agreement was admissible.  So I did not strike out the parts of the Carter affidavit about which complaint was made.

10. I am also satisfied that the subpoenas should stand.  The terms of the Agreement are such that it opens a line of enquiry as to whether or not the solicitors have control of the litigation.  It is not appropriate to examine that question at present based solely upon the Agreement.  It may be that no steps to restrain the applicants' solicitors will be taken once the documents have been produced.  But based upon all of the evidence available, I was not satisfied that the issue of the subpoenas was an abuse of process.

11. I should repeat, as I made plain during the course of the hearing, that nothing in these reasons determines any claim for privilege that might be made by the applicants when the subpoena is returned.  What I did require of Slater & Gordon Ltd was that on the return of the subpoena they list all of those documents over which a claim of privilege was made.  If there then is to be any challenge to the claim for privilege, the respondents' solicitors at least know how the documents are described.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: PIERRE -v- ANVIL MINING MANAGEMENT NL [2008] WASC 30 (S)

CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD:   27 FEBRUARY 2008 & 29 JULY 2008

DELIVERED          :   27 FEBRUARY 2008

SUPPLEMENTARY

DECISION              :22 OCTOBER 2008

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2103 of 2007

BETWEEN:   KUNDA MUSOPELO PIERRE

First Applicant

KALINGA VICTORINE LWANZA as personal representative of MASOKO SOPHIE KABANGO (Dec)
Second Applicant

ROGER NWAMBA ILUNGA
Third Applicant

CHAMPO ARNOLD MUMBA
Fourth Applicant

CLEMENTINE KYUNGU NDUBIE MUKEYA as personal representative of JOSEPH KAPYA KAYOMBO (Dec)
Fifth Applicant

JEAN CLAUDE MWAMBA MUKALAY as personal representative of AUGUSTINE TABU MWAMBA (Dec)
Sixth Applicant

JEANNE MASENGO SHIKWILA on her own behalf and as personal representative of STANISLAS KABWEBWE KITANIKA (Dec)
Seventh Applicant

KASUNGAMI STEPHANIE KAPIA as personal representative of LWEMBE KAPIA (Dec)
Eighth Applicant

MISEMPO IDA NGOMBE as personal representative of MWILADOWE NDEKANDEKA SANDUKU (Dec)
Ninth Applicant

KASUNGAMI STEPHANIE KAPIA as personal representative of MWANGE KAPIA (Dec)
Tenth Applicant

NGOY EZEKIEL LUNE WA YUMBA

Eleventh Applicant

LWEMBE NETI KIMPWA as personal representative of SHIMPUNDU PILATI (Dec)
Twelfth Applicant

BANZA BRANJA N'KULU
Thirteenth Applicant

NGONGWE DAVID KISALA as personal representative of NGONGWE DAVID +KISALA (Dec)
Fourteenth Applicant

MULIMBI EMMAN MULIMBI as personal representative of NYEMBO ELISE MULIMBI (Dec)
Fifteenth Applicant

CHRISTOPHE MUSINGE SAMBA
Sixteenth Applicant

MUKALAY ALBERT KITANIKA
Seventeenth Applicant

NKULU NORBERT BUSUMA
Eighteenth Applicant

YUMBA YENZA as personal representative of BONSTON MUILAMBUE (Dec)
Nineteenth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA
Twentieth Applicant

JACQUELINE MUKALAY
Twenty­First Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA JNR (Dec)
Twenty-Second Applicant

WILLY MUTONDO
Twenty-Third Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MONGA DONATIEN WA MONGA (Dec)
Twenty-Fourth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MUSONDA JENOVIC CONGO (Dec)
Twenty-Fifth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MWIKA FABIOLA MUSONDA (Dec)
Twenty-Sixth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KYUNGU DAMIEN MURELWA (Dec)
Twenty-Seventh Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KALUMBA FRANCAISE KAPONDA (Dec)
Twenty-Eighth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of KALEMBE ABBOTINE KAPULO (Dec)
Twenty-Ninth Applicant

KIBEKA URBAIN MUSONDA as personal representative of MUSONDA GIRES CONGO (Dec)
Thirtieth Applicant

IRENE NUNBI WA NUNBI
Thirty-First Applicant

BENOIT KISHINBA NAKOBA
Thirty-Second Applicant

DENISE NAUBYE KASENGESHA
Thirty-Third Applicant

PHILIPPE KASONGO LUPITALO
Thirty-Fourth Applicant

MATTHIEU KALUNGA KILOMBO
Thirty-Fifth Applicant

JEAN PAUL NGOBA MULENGA
Thirty-Sixth Applicant

LOUISA HARI INAONEKANA
Thirty-Seventh Applicant

JACQUELINE KASUBA KYONBA
Thirty-Eighth Applicant

PROSJENINE KYOMBA LUKWESA
Thirty-Ninth Applicant

ASTRIDO KISHINBA NDOBA

Fortieth Applicant

CECILE KABELWE KALWA
Forty-First Applicant

CHRISOPHE KAZENBA KANBI
Forty-Second Applicant

BIBI MUTONBO JULUNGA
Forty-Third Applicant

ELIZABETH KIPITA KALONDA
Forty-Fourth Applicant

LEONTINE MITONGA MWABA on her own behalf and as next friend of MWABO MAMGWE MWABA and KAOMBE FRANCISCO MWABA
Forty-Fifth Applicant

IMELAE MWELWA MWAPE
Forty-Sixth Applicant

ASTRIDA KABAGO KYABLA
Forty-Seventh Applicant

ALPHONSHIA MWANTO LUKWOSA
Forty-Eighth Applicant

STANY KABWE KITANIKA on her own behalf and as personal representative of JEANWE MASENGO SHIKWILA (Dec)
Forty-Ninth Applicant

CHOTILDE MWANSA KASHEBECE
Fiftieth Applicant

CHARLOTTE LUNUNA MAPESA
Fifty-First Applicant

FRANCOISE KASONGO KYUNGU
Fifty-Second Applicant

VERONIQUE MUKEYA MUKALAY
Fifty-Third Applicant

JACQUELINE MPWETO MITONGA
Fifty-Fourth Applicant

LOUISE MWELWA KABULO
Fifty-Fifth Applicant

EVARISTE KABULO KYUPE
Fifty-Sixth Applicant

FAUSTONE MWABWE KABULO
Fifty-Seventh Applicant

BEATRICE KABEYA MIKODBE
Fifty-Eighth Applicant

JEANINE KIREGONA KYENBE
Fifty-Ninth Applicant

ADELE MWAYUMA FARAI on her own behalf and as personal representative of ULIMWENGU NOMBELE WILLY and UMA ULIMWENGU PASCAL
Sixtieth Applicant

MIREILLE KITENGE KALONDA
Sixty-First Applicant

AND

ANVIL MINING MANAGEMENT NL (ACN 060 478 962)
First Respondent

ANVIL MINING LTD (ARBN 107 912 550)
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Costs - Application by respondents for an order costs be paid by applicants' solicitors - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Costs order made against applicants
Costs order against applicants' solicitors refused

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Applicant  :     Mr C Prast

Second Applicant                :     Mr C Prast

Third Applicant                   :     Mr C Prast

Fourth Applicant                 :     Mr C Prast

Fifth Applicant  :     Mr C Prast

Sixth Applicant                   :     Mr C Prast

Seventh Applicant               :     Mr C Prast

Eighth Applicant                  :     Mr C Prast

Ninth Applicant                   :     Mr C Prast

Tenth Applicant                  :     Mr C Prast

Eleventh Applicant              :     Mr C Prast

Twelfth Applicant                :     Mr C Prast

Thirteenth Applicant            :     Mr C Prast

Fourteenth Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

Fifteenth Applicant              :     Mr C Prast

Sixteenth Applicant             :     Mr C Prast

Seventeenth Applicant         :     Mr C Prast

Eighteenth Applicant            :     Mr C Prast

Nineteenth Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

Twentieth Applicant            :     Mr C Prast

Twenty­First Applicant        :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Second Applicant    :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Third Applicant      :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Fourth Applicant     :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Fifth Applicant        :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Sixth Applicant       :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Seventh Applicant    :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Eighth Applicant     :     Mr C Prast

Twenty-Ninth Applicant       :     Mr C Prast

Thirtieth Applicant               :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-First Applicant          :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Second Applicant     :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Third Applicant         :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Fourth Applicant       :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Fifth Applicant          :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Sixth Applicant         :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Seventh Applicant     :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Eighth Applicant       :     Mr C Prast

Thirty-Ninth Applicant         :     Mr C Prast

Fortieth Applicant               :     Mr C Prast

Forty-First Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Second Applicant      :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Third Applicant         :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Fourth Applicant        :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Fifth Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Sixth Applicant          :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Seventh Applicant      :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Eighth Applicant        :     Mr C Prast

Forty-Ninth Applicant          :     Mr C Prast

Fiftieth Applicant                 :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-First Applicant            :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Second Applicant       :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Third Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Fourth Applicant         :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Fifth Applicant            :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Sixth Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Seventh Applicant       :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Eighth Applicant         :     Mr C Prast

Fifty-Ninth Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

Sixtieth Applicant                :     Mr C Prast

Sixty-First Applicant           :     Mr C Prast

First Respondent                 :     Mr J A Thomson

Second Respondent            :     Mr J A Thomson

Solicitors:

First Applicant  :     Slater & Gordon

Second Applicant                :     Slater & Gordon

Third Applicant                   :     Slater & Gordon

Fourth Applicant                 :     Slater & Gordon

Fifth Applicant  :     Slater & Gordon

Sixth Applicant                   :     Slater & Gordon

Seventh Applicant               :     Slater & Gordon

Eighth Applicant                  :     Slater & Gordon

Ninth Applicant                   :     Slater & Gordon

Tenth Applicant                  :     Slater & Gordon

Eleventh Applicant              :     Slater & Gordon

Twelfth Applicant                :     Slater & Gordon

Thirteenth Applicant            :     Slater & Gordon

Fourteenth Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

Fifteenth Applicant              :     Slater & Gordon

Sixteenth Applicant             :     Slater & Gordon

Seventeenth Applicant         :     Slater & Gordon

Eighteenth Applicant            :     Slater & Gordon

Nineteenth Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

Twentieth Applicant            :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty­First Applicant        :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Second Applicant    :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Third Applicant      :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Fourth Applicant     :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Fifth Applicant        :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Sixth Applicant       :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Seventh Applicant    :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Eighth Applicant     :     Slater & Gordon

Twenty-Ninth Applicant       :     Slater & Gordon

Thirtieth Applicant               :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-First Applicant          :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Second Applicant     :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Third Applicant         :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Fourth Applicant       :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Fifth Applicant          :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Sixth Applicant         :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Seventh Applicant     :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Eighth Applicant       :     Slater & Gordon

Thirty-Ninth Applicant         :     Slater & Gordon

Fortieth Applicant               :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-First Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Second Applicant      :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Third Applicant         :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Fourth Applicant        :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Fifth Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Sixth Applicant          :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Seventh Applicant      :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Eighth Applicant        :     Slater & Gordon

Forty-Ninth Applicant          :     Slater & Gordon

Fiftieth Applicant                 :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-First Applicant            :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Second Applicant       :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Third Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Fourth Applicant         :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Fifth Applicant            :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Sixth Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Seventh Applicant       :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Eighth Applicant         :     Slater & Gordon

Fifty-Ninth Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

Sixtieth Applicant                :     Slater & Gordon

Sixty-First Applicant           :     Slater & Gordon

First Respondent                 :     Clayton Utz

Second Respondent            :     Clayton Utz

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

Pierre v Anvil Mining Management NL [2008] WASC 30

1. MASTER SANDERSON:  By application filed 19 May 2008, the applicants sought leave to discontinue the application for pre‑action discovery.  The summons also sought an order that 'costs of the application be provided for'.  At the hearing of the application, the applicants proposed that the costs order should be that they (the applicants) pay the respondents' costs to be taxed.  The respondents were happy enough for leave to be granted to discontinue the application, but they were not content with the applicants' proposed costs order.  They sought an order in the following terms:

   1.The applicants and their solicitors Slater & Gordon Limited pay the costs of the first and second respondents in relation to the application including reserved costs and the costs of today on a jointly and severally liable basis.

   2.The costs referred to in order 2 be taxed on an indemnity basis unless otherwise agreed.

2. At the hearing of the application, the applicants relied on an affidavit of Patricia Grylls sworn 16 May 2008.  The respondents took objection to certain parts of that affidavit.  No notice of those objections had been given to the applicants' solicitors prior to the hearing.  I therefore allowed the applicants to file a further affidavit.  This they did.  Ms Grylls' further affidavit was sworn on 8 August 2008.

3. The background to the application itself is set out in my reasons:  Pierre v Anvil Mining Management NL [2008] WASC 30.  I will not set out again the matters at issue.  It is sufficient if I say that while the application itself was for pre‑action discovery, proceedings were derailed over, firstly, whether the costs agreement between the applicants and their solicitors ought be disclosed and, secondly, whether the terms of that costs agreement would open the applicants' solicitors to claims of champerty and maintenance.  I should make the point that the second of these two issues was never ventilated to any extent.  But I did order that the costs agreement should be disclosed and it was the terms of that costs agreement which led the respondents' solicitors to make the application for the costs orders set out above.

4. Turning then to the evidence of Ms Grylls, she is the executive director of Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID).  RAID's principal aim is the protection and monitoring of human rights in developing countries, particularly in relation to the activities of corporations and businesses.  In other words, it is a non‑government organisation (NGO) aiming to protect the interests of the poor and dispossessed.  It is active in many countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).  In the DRC it acts in conjunction with various other NGOs - doubtless all organisations having similar aims and making the best use of available resources.

5. Ms Grylls says that following the hearing on 27 February 2008, Slater & Gordon requested RAID to arrange to visit each of the applicants to update them on the case and obtain reconfirmation of their instructions.  In early March 2008, Ms Grylls visited two of the original claimants living in Lubumbashi and obtained written confirmation of those instructions.  She also paid a preliminary visit to Kilwa.  Ms Grylls says that on 1 April 2008, she advised the applicants' solicitors that two of her colleagues had been prevented from flying to Kilwa to interview the applicants.  Fifty‑eight of the 61 applicants live in Kilwa.  It was the Congolese authorities who prevented Ms Grylls' colleagues from taking the flight.

6. Ms Grylls then details the sequence of events which led to permission to travel to Kilwa being denied.  It became apparent to Ms Grylls that at no time in the foreseeable future was anyone from any NGO likely to be permitted to fly to Kilwa.  This effectively meant that instructions could not be obtained.

7. Furthermore, in early April, Ms Grylls was advised that two of her colleagues in a NGO with whom she was working had received death threats.  These death threats were anonymous but were taken seriously.  As a consequence of all these matters, Ms Grylls harboured real doubts about the prospect of harm being done to the claimants.  All this material is taken from Ms Grylls' first affidavit.

8. Ms Grylls' second affidavit rectifies some technical defects in the earlier document and expands significantly on her earlier evidence.  But the thrust of that evidence is the same.  The government of the DRC had prevented representatives of NGOs getting to Kilwa and it was unlikely that any such travel would be permitted in the near future.  Ms Grylls also says (at par 43 of her second affidavit) that the 'three claimants with whom I was able to make contact had asked me to convey to SAG [that is, Slater & Gordon] that in the circumstances, they instructed the application be discontinued'.  The situation is not entirely clear and Ms Grylls has been unable to obtain specific instructions from all of the applicants, but it is reasonable to suppose that the instructions to proceed have been withdrawn.

9. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that a costs order should be made against the applicants' solicitors.  In my view, they have acted in a proper and appropriate manner.  There has been no final determination as to the validity or otherwise of the costs agreement.  I am certainly not in a position to conclude that the costs agreement is, in its form, impermissible to an extent that the applicants' solicitors are at fault.

10. It must be remembered that conducting litigation such as this with claimants who are under considerable disadvantage, not least because they are located out of the jurisdiction, requires a different approach.  To penalise the applicants' solicitors for taking that approach when it has not been demonstrated that they acted improperly would be inappropriate.

11. Moreover, there does appear to have been valid and proper reasons for the applicants discontinuing these proceedings.  The evidence of Ms Grylls is uncontradicted and it is to the effect that the applicants would have been placing their own personal safety at risk if the matter had proceeded.  I should hasten to say that there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the respondents were in any way involved in what might be called a campaign of harassment in relation to the applicants.  But the fact remains Ms Grylls, a person obviously experienced in operating in developing countries such as the DRC, was sufficiently concerned to advise that the application be brought to an end.

12. In the circumstances, then, the order will be that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application, including the reserved costs, to be taxed.