Legal Research
Cases
Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Ammon

Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Ammon

Link copied

Case Copied 24 August 2018 79 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD -v- AMMON [2018] WASC 258
CORAM:   FIANNACA J
HEARD:   29 & 30 OCTOBER 2015; 30 & 31 MARCH 2016
DELIVERED          :   24 AUGUST 2018
FILE NO/S:   GDA 12 of 2014
BETWEEN:   PILBARA IRON ORE PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
DEREK NOEL AMMON
First Respondent
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF MINES
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WARDEN'S COURT
Coram:   WARDEN WILSON
File Number            :   PLAINT KR 1/078

Catchwords:

General Division Appeal - Whether strict appeal or rehearing - Joint Venture Mining Agreement - Proper construction - Implied term pleaded - Whether primary court decision affected by errors of law and fact

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Mining Act 1978 (WA)
Mining Regulations 1981 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr S Vandongen SC & Mr M J Feutrill
First Respondent	:	Mr C P Shanahan SC & Mr A P Hershowitz
Second Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Allen & Overy
First Respondent	:	Dwyer Durack Lawyers
Second Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Ammon v Consolidated Minerals Ltd [No 3] [2007] WASC 232
Ammon v Pilbara Iron Ore P/L & DG DMP [2014] WAMW 18
Ammon v Pilbara Iron Ore P/L [2012] WAMW 14
Ammon v Pilbara Iron Ore P/L [2013] WAMW 4
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB [1985] 1 AC 191
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
Appleby v Pursell [1973] 2 NSWLR 879
Attorney‑General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1988; [2009] 2 All ER 1127
Attorney‑General of Botswana v Aussie Diamond Products Pty Ltd [No 2] [2012] WASCA 73
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99
Australian Telecommunications Commission v Hart (1982) 65 FLR 41
Bahamas International Trust Co Ltd v Threadgold [1974] 1 WLR 1514
Biki v Chessells [2004] VSCA 70; [2004] ANZ Conv R 296
Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Bradford House Pty Ltd v Leroy Fashion Group Ltd (1983) 68 FLR 1
Breen v William (1996) 186 CLR 71
Brodie v Cardiff Corporation (1919) AC 337
Byrne v Australian Airlines Pty Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Carlo Nobili S.p.A. Rubinetterie v Militaire Nominees Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 47
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 347
Colliers Jardine (NSW) Pty Ltd v Balog Investments Pty Ltd [1996] ANZ ConvR 527
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32; (2014) 253 CLR 169
Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 226
Coulton v Holcombe [1986] HCA 33; (1986) 162 CLR 1
Crampton v The Queen [2000] HCA 60; (2000) 206 CLR 161
Cunliffe-Owen v Teather & Greenwood [1967]…

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 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: [2018] WASC 258
Decision Date: 24 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, Pilbara Iron Ore Pty Ltd, the appellant, brought an appeal against the decision of Ammon, the respondent. The dispute concerns the interpretation of a Joint Venture Mining Agreement and the existence of an implied term within that agreement. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the appeal was to be treated as a strict appeal or a rehearing. The court also had to determine the proper construction of the Joint Venture Mining Agreement and whether the primary court had correctly interpreted an implied term that was pleaded. The appellant argued that the primary court had erred in both its factual findings and legal conclusions, and these errors required the appeal to be treated as a rehearing.

The court found that the appeal was to be treated as a rehearing due to the significant errors in both law and fact that affected the primary court's decision. The court examined the agreement and the circumstances surrounding its creation, and found that the primary court had misapplied the principles of contract interpretation. The court also determined that the primary court had failed to properly consider the evidence relating to the implied term, and this had led to an incorrect conclusion. The court held that the primary court's errors warranted a rehearing of the matter.

The court ordered that the appeal be treated as a rehearing, and that the case be remitted back to the primary court for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court emphasised the importance of accurately interpreting contractual agreements and considering all relevant evidence when determining the existence of implied terms.

Orders