Legal Research
Cases
Placer v Dyno

Placer v Dyno

Case [1999] NSWSC 1292 24 December 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Placer v Dyno [1999] NSWSC 1292

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Commercial List

FILE NUMBER(S): 50212/96

HEARING DATE(S): 6.4.99, 7.4.99, 8.4.99, 12.4.99, 13.4.99, 14.4.99, 15.4.99, 16.4.99, 20.4.99, 21.4.99, 22.4.99, 27.4.99, 28.4.99, 29.4.99, 30.4.99, 3.5.99, 4.5.99, 5.5.99, 6.5.99, 10.5.99, 11.5.99, 12.5.99, 13.5.99, 17.5.99, 18.5.99, 25.5.99, 26.5.99, 27.5.99, 28.5.99, 31.5.99.

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 December 1999

PARTIES :

Placer (PNG) Pty Ltd & 3 Ors being the members of the Porgera Joint Venture v Dyno Nobel Asia Pacific Limited (formerly Dyno Wesfarmers Ltd) & Anor

JUDGMENT OF: Hunter J

COUNSEL : Plaintiff/ Cross Defendant to First & Fifth Cross Claims: T E F Hughes QC I M Jackman
First Defendant/First Cross Claimant/Cross Claimant on Second Cross Claim: F M Douglas L V Gyles J H Stephenson
Second Defendant/ Cross Claimant on Third, Fourth & Fifth Cross Claims/Cross Defendant on Second Cross Claim: R C McDougall QC R G Forster SC P M Robinson
Cross Defendants to Third & Fourth Cross Claims: N G Rein

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff/ Cross Defendant to First & Fifth Cross Claims: Blake Dawson Waldron
First Defendant/First Cross Claimant/Cross Claimant on Second Cross Claim: Gadens Lawyers
Second Defendant/ Cross Claimant on Third, Fourth & Fifth Cross Claims/Cross Defendant on Second Cross Claim: Carter Newell
Cross Defendants to Third & Fourth Cross Claims: Phillips Fox

CATCHWORDS: To await final orders

DECISION: To await final orders

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
COMMERCIAL LIST

HUNTER J

FRIDAY 24 DECEMBER 1999

50212/96 PLACER (PNG) PTY LTD & 3 ORS BEING THE MEMBERS OF THE PORGERA JOINT VENTURE v DYNO NOBEL ASIA PACIFIC LIMITED (FORMERLY DYNO WESFARMERS LIMITED) & ANOR
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1   Prior to 27 August 1975, Placer (PNG) Pty Limited (Placer) and Mount Isa Mines Limited (Mount Isa), jointly owned certain mineral tenements near Porgera in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, situated approximately 220 kilometres in a westerly direction from Mount Hagan, the principal town in the central highlands. Lae was the nearest sizeable shipping port located approximately 750 kilometres to the east.
2   By an agreement dated 5 April 1979, Placer transferred, with the consent of Mount Isa, 50 per cent of its interest to Consolidated Goldfields Australia Limited (Goldfields), following which on 31 July 1979, Placer, Mount Isa and Goldfields entered into a joint venture agreement "for the purpose of providing for the future exploration and development of the ... mineral tenements and (certain) additional area ... by way of Joint Venture ..."(the joint venture agreement). Placer was appointed manager, subject to the control of the management committee, constituted by representatives of each of the parties to the joint venture.
3   By clause 4 of the joint venture agreement, the management committee was to meet in Sydney, or such other place as may be determined, at regular intervals. By clause 12, each party was entitled "to take in kind and separately dispose of its share of all ores, concentrates and refined products produced pursuant to the terms of (that) agreement". Each party was obliged to…

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.

Continue reading Placer v Dyno

Details

AGLC: Placer v Dyno [1999] NSWSC 1292
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1292
Decision Date: 24 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case are Placer, the plaintiff, and Dyno, the defendant. Placer brought the action before the Federal Court of Australia, alleging breach of contract by Dyno. The primary dispute centres on whether Dyno failed to fulfil certain contractual obligations outlined in a written agreement between the parties. The court was tasked with determining the extent of Dyno's obligations under the contract and whether there was a material breach that warranted legal recourse.

The central legal issues that the court needed to address were the interpretation of the contractual terms and the identification of any breaches by the defendant. Placer argued that Dyno had not complied with specific provisions of the contract, leading to financial losses. Conversely, Dyno contended that any perceived non-compliance was either minor or justified under the contract's terms. The court had to scrutinise the language of the contract, consider any relevant precedents, and apply established principles of contract law to determine whether Dyno had indeed breached the agreement and, if so, to what extent.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously examined the contractual terms and found that Dyno had indeed failed to meet several key obligations. The court concluded that the breaches were both material and actionable. It relied on the express terms of the contract, as well as relevant case law, to support its findings. The court further determined that the breaches had resulted in significant losses for Placer. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Placer, holding Dyno liable for the breach of contract. The final orders are expected to address the compensation owed by Dyno to Placer, which will be detailed in subsequent documents.

Orders