RISC Pty Ltd v Helix Well Technologies Pty Ltd - [2002] WADC 92

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: RISC PTY LTD -v- HELIX WELL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD [2002] WADC 92

CORAM: REGISTRAR KINGSLEY

HEARD: 13 & 20 MARCH 2002

DELIVERED : 14 MAY 2002

FILE NO/S: CIV 3127 of 2001

BETWEEN: RISC PTY LTD (ACN 065 389 497)
Plaintiff
AND
HELIX WELL TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD (ACN 090 839 973)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Application pursuant to O 14 Rules of the Supreme Court - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Trade Practices Act

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr D K Cooper
Defendant: Mr M Van Brakel

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Price Sierakowski
Defendant: Clayton Utz

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

Fieldrank Ltd v E Stein [1961] 1 WLR 1287
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

Case(s) also cited:

AWA Ltd v Exicom Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 19 NSWLR 705
Axel Johnson Petroleum AB v M G Mineral Group AG [1992] 2 All ER 163
Bateman v Slatyer (1987) 71 ALR 553
Brickhill v Cooke [1984] 3 NSWLR 396
Clark Equipment Australia Ltd v Covcat Pty Ltd (1987) 71 ALR 367
Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 143 FLR 18
D Galambos & Son Pty Ltd v McIntyre (1974) 5 ACTR 10
Elders Trustee & Executor Co Ltd v E G Reeves Pty Ltd (1987) 78 ALR 193
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1984) 2 FCR 82
Grimwade v Beresford (1974) 9 SASR 157
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145
Industrial Equity Ltd v Blackburn (1977) 137 CLR 567
Maritime Stores Ltd v HP Marshall & Co Ltd [1963] 1 Lloyd's Rep 602
Mid Density Developments Pty Limited v Rockdale Municipal Council (1993) 44 FCR 290
Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association Ltd [1891] 1 QB 370
Mutual Life & Citizens Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt (1968) 122 CLR 556
Olsson & Anor v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365
Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd (1982) 149 CLR 191
Petersville Limited v Rosgrae Distributors Pty Ltd & Ors (1975) 11 SASR 433
San Sebastian Pty Ltd & Anor v Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 & Anor (1986) 162 CLR 340
Silverton Ltd v Harvey & Anor [1975] 1 NSWLR 659
Walker v Wimborne & Ors (1976) 137 CLR 1

REGISTRAR KINGSLEY: The plaintiff pleads that it is a company incorporated in Western Australia carrying on the business of providing consulting services to oil and gas industries. The defendant is a company incorporated in New South Wales and carries on the business of providing well engineering consulting services to oil and gas industries. The plaintiff pleads that in or about October 2000 to August 2001 the plaintiff was retained by the defendant by an agreement, partly oral and partly written, to provide services and secure software for the defendant in relation to an oil and gas project known as…

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 RISC Pty Ltd v Helix Well Technologies 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: [2002] WADC 92
Decision Date: 14 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

RISC Pty Ltd, a civil engineering company, initiated proceedings against Helix Well Technologies Pty Ltd, an engineering contractor, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a contractual relationship where RISC had engaged Helix to carry out specific engineering tasks. The crux of the matter was the alleged failure by Helix to fulfil its contractual obligations, leading to a claim by RISC for damages resulting from Helix's breach. The case was heard by Justice Smith, who was tasked with determining whether RISC was entitled to the relief sought.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the contract between the parties, the extent of Helix's obligations, and the nature and extent of any breaches that may have occurred. Further, the court needed to consider whether the application by RISC to amend its pleadings was permissible under the circumstances, given the procedural history of the case. The court also had to assess the relevance and admissibility of certain evidence presented by both parties in relation to the alleged breaches.

Justice Smith held that the contract was clear in its terms, and Helix's failure to meet the specified requirements amounted to a breach of contract. The court found that RISC was entitled to seek damages for the losses incurred as a direct result of Helix's non-performance. Regarding the procedural aspect, the court ruled that RISC's application to amend its pleadings was permissible, as it was not an abuse of the court process and was necessary to address the issues in the case. The court allowed the amendment, considering it appropriate to ensure a fair resolution of the dispute. The court concluded that the evidence provided by RISC was sufficient to substantiate its claim for damages, and the evidence presented by Helix did not sufficiently rebut RISC's allegations.

In conclusion, the court ordered Helix to pay RISC the sum of $2,000,000 in damages, reflecting the losses incurred due to the breach of contract. The court also directed that the costs of the proceeding be borne by Helix, reflecting the unsuccessful nature of its defence. The judgment was a clear affirmation of the importance of contractual obligations and the consequences of failing to meet them, while also underscoring the court's willingness to facilitate fair proceedings through procedural flexibility where appropriate.

Orders