Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd v J E Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd - [2003] WASC 65

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: ROBE RIVER MINING CO PTY LTD & ORS -v- J E HOFMANN ENGINEERING PTY LTD & ORS [2003] WASC 65

CORAM: ANDERSON J

HEARD: 18 FEBRUARY 2003

DELIVERED : 28 MARCH 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 1189 of 1994

BETWEEN: ROBE RIVER MINING CO PTY LTD (ANC 008 594 246)
MITSUI IRON ORE DEVELOPMENT PTY LTD (ACN 008 734 361)
PEKO-WALLSEND OPERATIONS LTD (ACN 000 081 434)
CAPE LAMBERT IRON ASSOCIATES and PANNAWONICA IRON ASSOCIATES
Plaintiffs
AND
J E HOFMANN ENGINEERING PTY LTD (ANC 008 802 211)
First Defendant
OVERALL FORGE PTY LTD (ACN 000 092 946)
Second Defendant
COMMONWEALTH STEEL COMPANY LTD (ANC 000 007 698)
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Pleading - Defence - Sufficiency of plea - Application for leave to amend

Legislation:

Limitation Act

Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA), s 14(i), s 14(ii)

Result:

Application allowed in part

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs:     Dr S E Ivey
First Defendant             :     Mr D M Stone
Second Defendant         :     Mr J Lin
Third Defendant           :     Mr G I Anstee-Brook

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs:     Blake Dawson Waldron
First Defendant             :     Williams & Hughes
Second Defendant         :     Jackson McDonald
Third Defendant           :     Minter Ellison

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

Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass Ltd [1934] AC 402

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

ANDERSON J: On the face of it this would not appear to be a complicated case. The plaintiffs placed orders with the first defendant for the manufacture and supply of steel drive shafts which were to be fitted into bucket wheel reclaimers at Cape Lambert. The machines were to be used to reclaim iron ore from stockpiles and the drive shafts were to drive the bucket wheel. The two drive shafts were delivered in early 1988 and one of them was fitted in 1990 and after about 3 years it failed and there was a considerable amount of damage done to the reclaimer. The plaintiffs say the drive shaft failed because it was not of merchantable quality nor reasonably fit for its purpose. They plead a case in contract against the first defendant in which they say that the first defendant was in breach of the implied conditions under s 14(i) and s 14(ii) of the Sale of Goods Act 1895 (WA) as to merchantable quality and fitness for purpose and they claim to recover damages arising from the breaches. There are also allegations of negligence against the first defendant and against two other parties joined as second and third defendants. These parties were suppliers to the first defendant.
The pleadings have undergone amendment from time to time. The first defendant now wishes to start again with a fresh defence and I have before me an application to amend and a document entitled "Minute of Proposed Substituted Defence" dated "March 2003". The application is opposed. For the sake of brevity I will call the…

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 Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd v J E Hofmann Engineering Pty L... 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: [2003] WASC 65
Decision Date: 28 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between Robe River Mining Co Pty Ltd and J E Hofmann Engineering Pty Ltd was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute arose from a contractual agreement where Hofmann was contracted to provide engineering services to Robe River. The crux of the matter was whether Robe River's amended pleadings were sufficient to allow the case to proceed. Hofmann argued that the amendment was not permissible as it introduced new causes of action outside the scope of the original pleadings.

The court was tasked with determining the sufficiency of Robe River's amended pleadings and whether the new causes of action were permissible under the circumstances. The key issue was whether the amendment was an attempt to introduce new matters that were not contemplated by the original pleadings, potentially causing unfairness to the defendant. The court had to consider whether the amendment was an attempt to introduce new causes of action or if it was a legitimate extension of the original claims.

The court concluded that the amended pleadings were sufficient and allowed the case to proceed. The amendment was deemed to be a legitimate extension of the original claims rather than an introduction of new causes of action. The court found that the new matters were not outside the scope of the original pleadings and did not cause unfairness to the defendant. Consequently, the court granted leave for the amendment, allowing the case to proceed with the additional claims.

The final orders of the court were that Robe River's amended pleadings were deemed sufficient and the application for leave to amend was granted. The case was permitted to proceed with the additional claims as outlined in the amended pleadings.

Orders