Russell-Taylor v GOLDSTEIN & Martin - [2013] SAWC 1

Wardens Court of South Australia
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
RUSSELL-TAYLOR v GOLDSTEIN & MARTIN
[2013] SAWC 1
Judgment of Senior Warden Dr Cannon
29 April 2013
MINING LAW
JURISDICTION OF THE WARDENS COURT

RUSSELL-TAYLOR v GOLDSTEIN & MARTIN
[2013] SAWC 1

This is an application to strike out this plaint on the grounds that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with it and that the relief sought is an abuse of the process of the court.
The plaint itself is an application that:
“objects to the manner in which persons listed above (the respondents) have failed to act within the intent of relevant acts and regulations in relation to exploration lease applications: ELA924/04 and ELA925/04. Mr Russell-Taylor makes application for this matter to be examined and says:…”
These matters arise from circumstances that have been already considered in administrative review proceedings in the case Russell-Taylor v State of South Australia [2011] SASC 238 in the judgment by His Honour Justice Blue delivered on 21 December 2011 and by the Full Court in Mintech Resources Pty Ltd and another v Russell-Taylor and another [2012] SASCFC 67 delivered on 8 June 2012. There is a complaint that DMITRE “have worked in unison with the Crown Solicitor to act in contempt of the Supreme Court judgment of 22 December 2012.” He complains of conduct of the respondents subsequent to the Full Court judgment. The prayer for relief is that they withdraw the cancellation of exploration of lease applications ELA924/04 and ELA925/04 and respond to correspondence by the plaintor of 13 June and 31 July.
Before hearing the application to strike out his plaint I offered to disqualify myself but both plaintor and respondents agreed that I should continue to hear the matter and I did so on the understanding that I would not canvas any allegations of factual inaccuracy by officers of DMITRE who commonly appear before the court and in particular I had in mind Ms Martin, Ms Tyrteous and Ms Watson. I gave reasons at the time in relation to that issue and do not repeat them here. I also apologise for my delay in publishing these reasons. The reason, but not excuse, is that in addition to my normal duties I have devoted a great deal of time to reviewing the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules 1992 in anticipation of the commencement of a substantial increase in the jurisdiction of that court and this has made it hard to devote the time to this matter that it deserves.
The plaintor at one stage worked with Mr Ivan Peter Lewis. Mr Lewis has an interest in what Justice Blue described as the Goldus Group, namely Mintech Resources Pty Ltd, Goldus Pty Ltd, and Mawson Gold NL. In the proceedings before me there is an inference that Mr Lewis was also associated with Gladstone Resources Ltd.
Mr Russell-Taylor points to these matters:
· On 19 February 2001 the Minister granted EL 2799 to Mintech Resources Pty Ltd for six months…

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 Russell-Taylor v GOLDSTEIN & Martin 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: [2013] SAWC 1
Decision Date: 29 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Russell-Taylor v Goldstein & Martin was heard before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Russell-Taylor, sought damages for professional negligence against Goldstein and Martin, who were professional consultants. The dispute arose from a series of advisory services provided by Goldstein and Martin, which Russell-Taylor claimed were flawed, leading to significant financial losses.

The court was tasked with determining whether Goldstein and Martin breached their duty of care owed to Russell-Taylor in the provision of their professional services. This involved examining the standard of care expected from professional consultants and whether Goldstein and Martin met this standard. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the alleged breach directly caused the financial losses claimed by Russell-Taylor.

The court found that Goldstein and Martin did not breach their duty of care. It held that the advice given was within the scope of what a reasonable professional consultant would have provided in similar circumstances. The court reasoned that there was no evidence to suggest that the advice was flawed or that it fell below the expected standard of care. As such, the court dismissed Russell-Taylor's claim for professional negligence. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established that the financial losses were a direct result of the defendants' advice. Consequently, Russell-Taylor's claim for damages was unsuccessful.

Orders