Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Ammon

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD -v- AMMON [2008] WASCA 202



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2008] WASCA 202
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:59/200818 SEPTEMBER 2008
Coram:WHEELER JA
BEECH AJA
9/10/08
20Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Leave to appeal granted on ground 1(a), leave otherwise refused
Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD (ACN 100 410 295)
DEREK NOEL AMMON
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MINES

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure
Proceedings in another court with concurrent jurisdiction
Whether stay of proceedings in Supreme Court should be ordered
Whether any substantial injustice flows from order granting stay of Supreme Court proceedings
Whether superior court with concurrent jurisdiction should determine complex issues in preference to inferior court
Mining Act 1978 (WA)
Jurisdiction of Warden
Whether proceedings arise in respect of the title to or ownership of a mining tenement

Legislation:

Mining Act 1978 (WA) s 132(1)

Case References:

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2002] FCA 1061; (2002) 124 FCR 518
Boyd v Halstead; ex parte Halstead [1985] 2 Qd R 249
Global Doctor Ltd v Hodgkinson [2003] WASCA 119; (2003) 28 WAR 286
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
L & W Developments Pty Ltd v Della [2003] NSWCA 140; (2003) 135 IR 118
O'Grady v Northern Queensland Co Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 356
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v The Boots Company (Australia) Pty Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 287
Tiufino v Warland [2000] NSWCA 110; (2000) 50 NSWLR 104
Wiltrading (WA) Pty Ltd v Lumley General Insurance Ltd [2005] WASCA 106; (2005) 30 WAR 290


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD -v- AMMON [2008] WASCA 202 CORAM : WHEELER JA
    BEECH AJA
HEARD : 18 SEPTEMBER 2008 DELIVERED : 9 OCTOBER 2008 FILE NO/S : CACV 59 of 2008 BETWEEN : PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD (ACN 100 410 295)
    Appellant

    AND

    DEREK NOEL AMMON
    First Respondent

    DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MINES
    Second Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : TEMPLEMAN J

Citation : PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD v AMMON [2008] WASC 108

File No : CIV 1310 of 2008



(Page 2)



Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Proceedings in another court with concurrent jurisdiction - Whether stay of proceedings in Supreme Court should be ordered - Whether any substantial injustice flows from order granting stay of Supreme Court proceedings - Whether superior court with concurrent jurisdiction should determine complex issues in preference to inferior court



Mining Act 1978 (WA) - Jurisdiction of Warden - Whether proceedings arise in respect of the title to or ownership of a mining tenement

Legislation:

Mining Act 1978 (WA) s 132(1)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted on ground…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Ammon 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
[2008] WASCA 202
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd appealed against an order that stayed its proceedings in the Supreme Court in favour of arbitration proceedings in the Mining Titles Tribunal. The matter before the court was whether the order granting the stay should be affirmed, whether the stay would cause any substantial injustice, and whether the Supreme Court should determine complex issues in preference to the Tribunal.

The court considered the statutory framework governing the Mining Titles Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, including disputes concerning the title to or ownership of a mining tenement. The court found that the matters before the Tribunal fell within its jurisdiction and that the Supreme Court should not exercise its concurrent jurisdiction in this case. The court held that there would be no substantial injustice in staying the Supreme Court proceedings in favour of arbitration and that the Tribunal was better suited to determine the complex issues involved in this case.

The appeal was dismissed, with leave to appeal being granted on one ground only.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted on ground 1(a), leave otherwise refused

Appeal 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.