Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 5] - [2025] WASC 35

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   SINO IRON PTY LTD -v- MINERALOGY PTY LTD [No 5] [2025] WASC 35
CORAM:   LUNDBERG J
HEARD:   22 JANUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   7 FEBRUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2336 of 2023
BETWEEN:   SINO IRON PTY LTD
First Plaintiff
KOREAN STEEL PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff
CITIC LIMITED
Third Plaintiff
AND
MINERALOGY PTY LTD
First Defendant
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Numerous documents in the plaintiffs' large scale discovery subjected to extensive redactions - Redactions made on relevance grounds pursuant to O 26 r 1B(1)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) - No questions of privilege or confidentiality - Application by Mineralogy to have redactions removed - Scope of O 26 r 1B(1)(b) - Case management considerations and questions of proportionality - Whether the Peruvian Guano line of enquiry test should be applied in the Court's assessment of redactions - Turns on own facts

Practice and procedure - Discovery - Appropriateness and utility of adopting a sampling approach to discovery-related disputes - Case management benefits

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B, O 26 r 1B

Result:

Orders made as set out in Attachment A requiring removal of various redactions by the plaintiffs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	J H Kirkwood SC and R O'Brien
Second Plaintiff	:	J H Kirkwood SC and R O'Brien
Third Plaintiff	:	J H Kirkwood SC and R O'Brien
First Defendant	:	P J Dunning KC, H Cooper, D Fawcett, M Karam and K S Byrne
Second Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Second Plaintiff	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
Third Plaintiff	:	Herbert Smith Freehills
First Defendant	:	Robinson Nielsen Legal
Second Defendant	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASC 67
BlueScope Steel Limited v Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd [2017] FCA 1537
Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co [1882] 11 QBD 55
Cove House Illiquid Investments DAC v YA Global Investments LP [2018] WASC 349
JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2022] EWHC 868 (Ch)
Maek Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2022] WASC 285
Minetec Pty Ltd v Frost [2011] WASC 145
Mulley v Manifold [1959] HCA 23; (1959) 103 CLR 341
Roe v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 130
Schutz DSL (Aust) Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (No 14) [2011] FCA 1159
Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78
Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2024] WASC 413
WH Holdings Limited v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch)

Table of Contents

A. Introduction

The Application

Materials relied upon

Orders made on 3 February 2025

B. Order 26 r 1B(1)(b) RSC

C. Factual background

The discovery process

Compromise proposals have been made by the CITIC Parties

The Mineralogy Discovery Sample

D. Mineralogy's position

E. The CITIC Parties' position

F. Relevant principles

Many of the discovered documents will contain some irrelevant information

The use of a sampling approach

The approach to determining relevance

Forensic fairness

Consistent application across the redactions

Onus on the Application

Redactions for relevance only

G. Disposition

H. Conclusion and orders

ATTACHMENT A Orders made on 3 February 2025

ATTACHMENT B Mineralogy Discovery Sample

LUNDBERG J:

A. Introduction

The Application

On 2 October 2024, the Court ordered that the parties give discovery in this action by reference to various categories. The Court gave reasons in support of those orders on 7 November 2024: Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2].[1]
[1] Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2024] WASC 413 (Lundberg J).
A further discovery-related dispute has arisen between the parties, as to the extent and appropriateness of the redactions to the discovery which the CITIC Parties have provided in the action. Specifically, an application was filed by the first defendant, Mineralogy, to ventilate its concern that the CITIC Parties had wrongly redacted a significant proportion of their discovered documents.
The application was brought by amended chamber summons dated 15 January 2025 (Application),[2] and was heard on 22 January 2025 in conjunction with other interlocutory applications. The Application, as amended, seeks the following substantive orders:
[2] The original application is dated 13 December 2024 and was filed on 15 December 2024.
1. The plaintiffs give further discovery on affidavit by a date to be fixed by the Court of copies of the documents listed in Schedule 1 of this summons:
(a)removing redactions of information that is relating to a matter in question in the cause; and/or
(b)in accordance with the reasons of the Court in disposition of this application.
2. After the Court's rulings on the documents listed in Schedule 1 of this summons:
(a) the plaintiffs reconsider the redactions for relevance in the balance of the documents in Part 1A of the list of documents annexed to the affidavit of Fay Ng filed 3 December 2024;
(b) by a date to be fixed by the Court, give any further discovery on affidavit in respect of such documents.
As can be seen, there are two broad aspects to the Application.
First, the Application seeks orders requiring the plaintiffs to give further discovery on affidavit of documents, which are described in a schedule to the chamber summons (the Redacted Document Schedule), with various redactions to be removed. The Redacted Document Schedule identifies 245 specific documents, which represents a small subset of the total number of documents discovered by the CITIC Parties, which consists of 115,882 documents in total.
The Redacted Document Schedule has been compiled from a portion of the plaintiffs' discovery which consists of documents uniquely discovered in the present action, rather than the documents 're-discovered' from the prior action between these parties heard by Kenneth Martin J, being the 2017 MCP Proceeding. In this regard, the Court understands that, in early 2024, the CITIC Parties provided to Mineralogy the discovery from the 2017 MCP Proceeding, for the purposes of partially meeting their discovery obligations in the present action, without any additional redactions being made to those documents.[3] The redaction issues are therefore, at least for the purposes of the present Application and these reasons, confined to the discovery which has uniquely been given in the 2023 MCP Proceeding.
[3] Affidavit of David William John sworn 20 January 2025 [6(c)] (John Affidavit).
Further, it will be evident from these reasons that a sampling approach to the determination of this Application has been proposed by Mineralogy. That is, Mineralogy has invited the Court to review a sample of 12 documents (the Mineralogy Discovery Sample), which represents a sub-set of the 245 documents described in the Redacted Document Schedule. I understand the CITIC Parties did not seek to add additional documents to that sample.[4]
[4] ts 1258.
Second, on the basis of the review outlined above, Mineralogy seeks orders which would effectively require the CITIC Parties to undertake a broad re-assessment of the balance of the discovery which is unique to the present proceedings, beyond the documents in the Redacted Document Schedule, and thereafter provide further discovery and inspection of the documents in an unredacted form.

Materials relied upon

The Application is supported by four affidavits. Two affidavits have been sworn by Tracey Lyn Robinson, on 5 December 2024 and 16 January 2024, which I will refer to as the First Robinson Affidavit and the Second Robinson Affidavit respectively. Two further affidavits were sworn by Minwoo Chun on 20 January 2024 and 22 January 2024, which I will refer to as the First Chun Affidavit and the Second Chun Affidavit respectively. Ms Robinson and Mr Chun are legal practitioners acting for the first defendant. No objection was taken to the affidavit material.
I also received a set of concise submissions from Mineralogy dated 15 January 2025, which incorporated a table analysing the Mineralogy Discovery Sample.[5]
[5] Which I will refer to as PS.
In opposition to the Application, an affidavit was sworn by David William John, a legal practitioner representing the CITIC Parties, which I have earlier referred to as the John Affidavit. No objection was taken to that affidavit. The CITIC Parties also filed an outline of submissions in opposition to the Application, dated 20 January 2025.[6]

Orders made on 3 February 2025

[6] Which I will refer to as DS.

On 3 February 2025, having undertaken the review of the sample of documents provided to the Court, and in light of the submissions and affidavit evidence presented by the parties, I made orders requiring the CITIC Parties to remove redactions from various categories of documents in their discovery, and to then provide further discovery and inspection of those documents to Mineralogy. This is to be done in accordance with specific comments in the table attached to the orders.
I also ordered that the CITIC Parties undertake a reconsideration of the balance of their discovery, confined to the documents which have been uniquely discovered in the 2023 MCP Proceeding, having regard to those same comments.
The orders made by the Court are set out in Attachment A to these reasons. Through these orders, it is the intention of the Court that Mineralogy be given proper access to a much greater extent of information in the documents discovered by the CITIC Parties. The orders do not require that additional documents be discovered – the focus of the orders is on the removal of redactions.
These reasons explain why I considered orders should be made to have redactions removed and to require a re-assessment of the redactions by the CITIC Parties.

B. Order 26 r 1B(1)(b) RSC

All of the redactions disputed by Mineralogy have been made by the CITIC Parties on the grounds of relevance, pursuant to O 26 r 1B(1)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC).
That provision permits a party to edit a discoverable document to 'hide' certain information, namely 'information that is not related to a matter in question in the cause or matter'. None of the challenged redactions concern claims with respect to legal professional privilege or confidentiality.
The sub-rule pursuant to which the CITIC Parties redacted their discovered documents is in the following terms:
1B. Documents not wholly discoverable
(1) If under this Order a party in a cause or matter is required to give discovery of a document —
(a) the party must discover the document even if it contains —
(i) information that is not related to a matter in question in the cause or matter; or
(ii) information that the party objects to producing,
as well as information relating to a matter in question in the cause or matter that the party may be required to produce; but
(b) if the party has possession, custody or power of the document, the party may edit the document to hide the information referred to in paragraph (a)(i) and (ii).
Sub-rule (2) requires a party who edits a document to identify the document as such in its list of documents and state why the information is hidden, and any grounds for objecting to production. Pursuant to sub-rule (3), unless the Court orders otherwise, that party is not required to produce the hidden information to another party, or to allow another party to inspect or copy the hidden information.
Order 26 r 1B(3) RSC thus empowers the Court to order the production of hidden information, which provision should be read together with the terms of O 26 r 10 and r 11 RSC which deal with the powers of the Court to order production of documents. Those rules provide as follows:
10. Order for production to Court
At any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter the Court may subject to rule 11 order any party to produce to the Court any document in his possession, custody or power, relating to any matter in question in the cause or matter and the Court may deal with the document when produced in such manner as it thinks fit.
11.Order for production etc. only if necessary
No order for production of any documents for inspection or to the Court shall be made unless the Court is of opinion that the order is necessary either for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.

C. Factual background

The discovery process

The following factual points will be apparent from the earlier reasons of the Court addressing the dispute on the discovery categories,[7] and are otherwise drawn from the affidavit material filed by the parties on the present Application.
[7] See the Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2024] WASC 413.
On 11 September 2024, orders were made by the Court to require the parties to confer as to categories of documents and in relation to discovery protocols. The parties were able to agree on various discovery categories, but it was necessary for the Court to resolve disputes as to a range of categories.[8]
[8] See the Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2024] WASC 413.
On 2 October 2024, the Court ordered that the parties give discovery of documents described in Attachments A and B to those orders (being categories A, AB, AC, B, C, D, E, EA, EH, EI, EM, F, G and H in respect of the CITIC Parties, and categories AA, A and B in respect of Mineralogy).
The pool of documents required to be discovered by the categories is significant in number, and includes a large number of documents previously discovered by the parties in the 2017 MCP Proceeding. The Court has been informed that 115,882 documents have now been discovered in this action by the CITIC Parties.[9]
[9] John Affidavit [6(b)].
With the exception of the documents previously discovered by the CITIC Parties in the 2017 MCP Proceeding, the Mineralogy Parties do not hold documents relating to the operation of the Sino Iron Project and Mineralogy appears to have limited visibility of the inner workings of the project. It is the CITIC Parties who are the principal repository of the documentary material, being the operator of the project and so the bulk of the discovery burden has fallen upon the CITIC Parties.[10]
[10] See the Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2024] WASC 413 [33].
The majority of the documents discovered thus far in this action (around 85%) have been sourced from the discovery previously given by the CITIC Parties in the 2017 MCP Proceeding, with the balance being specifically or uniquely discovered in the current action.
The Court has been informed that, of the total number of documents discovered by the CITIC Parties, some 8,286 documents have been redacted for relevance. In contrast, Mineralogy makes the point that it discovered some 49,440 documents across the above proceedings and the two indemnity actions between these parties, and it redacted only one of those documents on the grounds of relevance.[11]
[11] First Chun Affidavit [9].
At the hearing before the Court on 5 December 2024, the issue as to the extent of the redactions made by the CITIC Parties was first drawn to the attention of the Court by senior counsel for Mineralogy.
That issue was not resolved and the present Application was thereafter filed, with orders subsequently made by the Court, by consent, to establish a procedural process to permit the issue to be determined.[12] The process included an order by which Mineralogy was required to 'nominate no more than twelve (12) documents of the Schedule 1 Documents (the Mineralogy Discovery Sample) to be inspected by the Court for the purposes of the hearing of the Application'.[13]
[12] The Application was initially filed on 15 December 2024, with orders made by consent on 23 December 2024.
[13] Orders made on 23 December 2024 [12].
The diagram below may assist to visualise the approach which has been proposed on this Application, and to summarise the magnitude of the discovery and the extent of the redactions.[14]

Diagram 1: CITIC Parties' Discovery in the 2023 MCP Proceeding

Compromise proposals have been made by the CITIC Parties

[14] The information in the diagram is drawn from the Second Robinson Affidavit, [7] and [9]. The Court notes from the affidavit of Ms Ng affirmed on 3 December 2024 that the discovery pool also includes documents from the FCD Proceedings, being CIV 2072 of 2017 and CIV 1267 of 2018. The extent of that aspect of the discovery pool is not apparent on the materials before the Court. Further, Mr John deposes that some 8,000 documents from the 2017 MCP Proceeding discovery, not 5,701 documents as noted by Ms Robinson, have been redacted. This would equate to a proportion of 8.1% of the documents as being the subject of redactions, rather than the figure of 5.78% as I have included in the diagram.

It is important to observe that, in response to Mineralogy's concerns, the CITIC Parties have not been idle. Those parties and their solicitors initiated a process to re-assess the redactions and to provide unredacted documents to Mineralogy. They did so without conceding the relevance of the material which had originally been redacted – that is, without prejudice to their position that the redactions had been appropriately made.
This process was the subject of detailed compromise proposals set out in two letters from the CITIC Parties' solicitors dated 10 December 2024 and 10 January 2025.[15] I was informed that the CITIC Parties would be voluntarily providing further discovery and inspection to Mineralogy on or about 24 January 2025.
[15] First John Affidavit [10], Attachments DWJ-35 and DWJ-36.
It was expected by the solicitors for the CITIC Parties that this voluntary process would result in the provision to Mineralogy of a significant number of documents with redactions removed. It was thus urged upon the Court by the CITIC Parties that the Application should in effect be adjourned, and the orders sought by Mineralogy should not be made.
Mineralogy did not accept these proposals, and did not accept the issue could be resolved through a voluntary process without concessions as to relevance.
The position of the CITIC Parties also included an acknowledgement that they would be prepared to consider redaction issues on an item by item basis in the lead up to trial, in the event Mineralogy identified additional specific concerns.[16]

The Mineralogy Discovery Sample

[16] ts 1286 and John Affidavit, Attachment DWJ-36 (page 29).

The sample of documents provided to the Court consisted of 12 documents drawn from the documents uniquely discovered in the 2023 MCP Proceeding.
The sample has been presented to the Court in such a way that I could see the entirety of each document, and could also see which portions have been the subject of redactions made by the CITIC Parties, with the transparent label 'Not relevant' applied. To assist the Court with the analysis, I have also been provided with examples of the documents in a form where certain redactions have been lifted by the CITIC Parties, as part of the voluntary review process which Mr John has explained in his affidavit. These documents are found in the John Affidavit at Attachment DWJ-38.[17]
[17] John Affidavit, Attachment DWJ-38.
I have summarised the documents in the Mineralogy Discovery Sample within the table in Attachment B to these reasons. I note that the documents can be split into nine categories.

D. Mineralogy's position

Mineralogy contends the redactions are extensive and therefore require vigilance on the part of the Court.[18] In this regard, counsel for Mineralogy, Mr Fawcett, relied on the following observations of Snowden J, sitting in the English High Court, in WH Holdings Limited v E20 Stadium LLP:[19]
First, whilst I accept … that the burden lies on the applicant to make out a case for inspection … and as is well known, the court will ordinarily be satisfied by a statement from a solicitor with responsibility for the disclosure process that the redactions in question have been properly made, I agree with Charles Hollander QC's commentary [in his work on Documentary Evidence (13th ed.)] that the heavy redaction of a very large number of documents justifies the court in adopting greater vigilance to ensure that the right to redact is not being abused or too liberally interpreted.
[18] AS [1].
[19] WH Holdings Limited v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] [37] (Snowden J), referred to with approval in JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [9] (Trower J).

Given the volume of the documents which are the subject of Mineralogy's concerns, as earlier noted, a sample approach has been adopted to this Application, with 245 individual documents identified in the Redacted Document Schedule. I understand those documents are all sourced from the 2023 MCP Proceeding discovery.[20] The majority of these documents are minutes of the management committee meetings for the Sino Iron Project and presentations or slide packs delivered to those meetings.[21]
[20] ts 1258.
[21] DS [15].
Mineralogy, through Mr Fawcett of counsel, forcefully submitted that the Court should undertake a review of the sample of documents, exercise the power in O 26 r 11 RSC to require production, and impose a court-ordered regime on the CITIC Parties to ensure a structured approach to the process.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Fawcett explained, by reference to several of the documents in the Mineralogy Discovery Sample, how the redacted portions could be seen to have hidden information which was relevant to the proceedings. Counsel placed emphasis on the 'line of enquiry' test established in Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co.[22]
[22] Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co [1882] 11 QBD 55 (Peruvian Guano).
It was emphasised by Mr Fawcett that the Mineralogy Discovery Sample revealed an overzealous approach to the redaction process, and that important and relevant information was being withheld, to the prejudice of Mineralogy. The sum of the redactions made by the CITIC Parties is said by Mineralogy to have the consequence that it is 'being deprived of significant amounts of relevant information and a proper understanding of what remains unredacted'.[23]
[23] PS [1].
Mineralogy submits that the Court's powers are sufficiently flexible to order that the CITIC Parties reconsider the balance of the redacted documents in their discovery following the Court's rulings on the Mineralogy Discovery Sample.

E. The CITIC Parties' position

In summary, the CITIC Parties submit that the redacted information is not relevant to the issues in dispute in this proceeding and assert that the redactions were appropriately made.[24] The CITIC Parties disputed the correctness of the first defendant's submission that the wide test in Peruvian Guano ought to be applied in determining whether information contained in discovered documents is required to be produced for inspection in an unredacted form.[25]
[24] PS [3].
[25] PS [9].
Further, it was submitted that, despite the appropriateness of the redactions, in the interests of minimising disputation prior to trial, the CITIC Parties had initiated a process of removing specified redactions in respect of a key subset of documents, which they submitted would 'go a considerable way to addressing Mineralogy’s complaints'.[26] The submissions make the following additional points in support of this contention:[27]
[17] The redaction review process being undertaken by the CITIC Parties will involve a subset of nearly 600 of the redacted documents discovered. This subset includes 76.67% of the 240 documents set out in the schedule to Mineralogy’s application. It is therefore expected to resolve a significant number of Mineralogy’s complaints about redactions.
[18] The redaction review process will remove the relevance redactions applied to the entire “Mining” and “TSF Construction” sections of management committee meeting minutes, and removal of all redactions for relevance over the associated presentations. The relevance redactions relating to sustainability projects in that subset of documents will also be removed. As can be seen from the examples attached to Mr John’s affidavit, this will enable Mineralogy to read those sections and references in full.
[19] With access to entirely unredacted sections and presentations relating to Mining and TSF Construction as well as references to sustainability projects, much of Mineralogy’s complaint will be addressed. (footnotes omitted)
[26] PS [4].
[27] PS [17] - [19].
A further broad submission was made by the CITIC Parties, as to the case management principles in O 1 r 4A and r 4B RSC. It was submitted that to order the CITIC Parties 'to commence a more extensive review or modification process in respect of many thousands of documents' would be inconsistent with case management principles, given the resources required by that exercise and in light of the imminent trial.[28]
[28] PS [5]
In Mr John's affidavit, a marked-up copy of the schedule to the first defendant's submissions has been included, which highlights the respects in which the CITIC Parties have, without conceding relevance, agreed to lift the redactions.[29]
[29] John Affidavit, Attachment DWJ-37.
For example, within the schedule to Mineralogy's submissions, insofar as the Production Summary Report 2022 is concerned, which is document CPM.680.002.2591, the first defendant has raised 6 specific issues with the redactions made to that document. The yellow highlighting in the document in Attachment DWJ-37 shows that the modifications to the redactions proposed by the CITIC parties will address only one of the issues.
In comparison, in respect of the TSF Construction Report for June 2023, the document in Attachment DWJ-37 shows that the modifications to the redactions proposed by the CITIC parties will address all of the issues.

F. Relevant principles

Before I explain the approach I have adopted, it is necessary to outline the principles and considerations to which I have had regard as part of my analysis. I will start by addressing some of the broader issues which were the subject of submissions and then move to explain my reasoning.

Many of the discovered documents will contain some irrelevant information

First, in a practical sense, it appears that many documents which have been discovered in this case will be lengthy and not 'single-issue' documents. Many of the documents will have been created as part of the day to day processes which occur in the operation and maintenance of a large scale iron ore mine. Many of the documents are likely to traverse a range of issues, not all of which will bear upon the matters raised in this action. The CITIC Parties have submitted, and I accept, that the 'myriad day-to-day operational decisions concerning the Project, and myriad internal discussions informing such decisions' are not relevant at large to the issues in dispute in the action.[30]
[30] PS [10].
I therefore accept that, in respect of many of the documents which are otherwise discoverable in this action, they will contain information which is, properly understood, irrelevant to the matters in issue in the action and that information may be edited to hide it as part of the discovery process. To be clear, adopting such an approach, in the course of a large scale discovery process, utilising the facility given to parties through O 26 r 1B (1)(b), is entirely legitimate.
The question which arises on the present Application is whether those redactions have exceeded the proper boundaries of the rule. In my view, and as I will explain, they have exceeded those boundaries. In saying that, I should not be taken to accept that the CITIC Parties have undertaken this process to 'withhold damaging information', as has been contended by Mineralogy.[31] I simply do not need to make any finding in this regard.

The use of a sampling approach

[31] PS [8]; DS [4].

Second, I accept that the use of a sampling approach in order to address a redaction dispute connected with a large scale discovery may be appropriate and, indeed, is appropriate in the circumstances of the present case.
Such an approach is intended to avoid the Court undertaking an extensive review of hundreds of documents, which would simply not be feasible. It is an approach which accords with the goal and objects in O 1 r 4A and O 1 r 4B RSC, particularly the objects of disposing efficiently of the business of the Court and maximising the efficient use of available judicial and administrative resources.
Further, the use of a sampling approach to resolve large scale discovery disputes has been undertaken in prior cases, including in the English commercial courts as seen in WH Holdings Limited v E20 Stadium LLP[32] and JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky.[33]
[32] WH Holdings Limited v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWHC 2578 (Ch) (Snowden J).
[33] JSC Commercial Bank Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2022] EWHC 868 (Ch) (Trower J).
Third, using the sampling approach, I have undertaken a review of the documents in the Mineralogy Discovery Sample and have proceeded on the basis that the conclusions I reach in relation to those documents can be applied across the other documents in the Redacted Document Schedule, and more broadly across the plaintiffs' discovery insofar as it concerns the documents uniquely discovered in the 2023 MCP Proceeding.

The approach to determining relevance

Fourth, in reviewing the information in the documents in the Mineralogy Discovery Sample, as to whether that information is 'related to a matter in question in the cause or matter' as set out in O 26 r 1B(1)(a)(i) RSC, I was conscious the parties had asserted that different approaches should be adopted. In my view, the primary approach urged upon me by counsel for Mineralogy should not be adopted.
A consideration of the issue should begin with the text of O 26 r 1B(1)(a)(i) and r 1B(1)(b) RSC. I understand the CITIC Parties have relied upon this rule to support the redactions for relevance which have been applied to their discovery
Those provisions, when read together, permit a party to edit a document to hide 'information that is not related to a matter in question in the cause or matter'. Prior to the introduction of this rule, the Court was able to relieve a party from its obligation to produce documents for inspection where that was unnecessary or oppressive, in its inherent jurisdiction.[34]
[34] Areva NC (Australia) Pty Ltd v Summit Resources (Australia) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASC 67 [38] - [39] (Martin CJ).
Counsel for Mineralogy submitted that the phrase in sub-rule (1)(a)(i) must be intended to invoke the test stated in Peruvian Guano, given the similarity of the language used in the Rules of the Supreme Court 1875 (UK), the regime under consideration in that case. The test stated in Peruvian Guano was later adopted in the High Court by Menzies J in Mulley v Manifold.[35]
[35] Mulley v Manifold [1959] HCA 23; (1959) 103 CLR 341, 345 (Menzies J).
Mr Fawcett also submitted, in the alternative, that the narrower test supported by the CITIC Parties would also result in a conclusion that the documents should not have been redacted.[36]
[36] ts 1272.
The formulation of the test by Brett LJ in Peruvian Guano begins at [62] of his Lordship's reasons, in a passage relied on by Mr Fawcett:[37]
We desire to make the rule as large as we can with due regard to propriety; and therefore I desire to give as large an interpretation as I can to the words of the rule, 'a document relating to any matter in question in the action'. I think it obvious from the use of these terms that the documents to be produced are not confined to those, which would be evidence either to prove or to disprove any matter in question in the action; and the practice with regard to insurance cases shews, that the Court never thought that the person making the affidavit would satisfy the duty imposed upon him by merely setting out such documents, as would be evidence to support or defeat any issue in the cause.
[37] Peruvian Guano [62] (Brett LJ) (and see Baggallay LJ at [59] - [60]).
Brett LJ then explained the breadth of the principle:[38]
The doctrine seems to me to go farther than that and to go as far as the principle which I am about to lay down. It seems to me that every document relates to matters in question in the action which not only would be evidence upon any issue, but also which, it is reasonable to suppose, contains information which may - not which must - either directly or indirectly enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. I have put in words 'either directly or indirectly' because it seems to me, a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance its own case or to damage the case of its adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead to a chain of inquiry, which may have either of those two consequences. (original emphasis)
[38] Peruvian Guano [63] (Brett LJ).
In my view, it would be wrong to construe the phrase in O 26 r 1B(1)(a)(i) RSC solely by reference to the formulation of the principle as expressed by Brett LJ, without regard to the context and purpose of the provision.
Importantly, the rules of this Court are to be construed and applied, and the processes and procedures of the Court conducted, so as best to ensure the attainment of the objects now stated in O 1 r 4B(1) RSC, which I need not repeat: see O 1 r 4B(2) RSC. Further to this, the practice, procedure and interlocutory processes of the Court shall have as their goal the elimination of any lapse of time from the date of initiation of proceedings to their final determination, beyond that reasonably required for interlocutory activities essential to the fair and just determination of the issues bona fide in contention between the parties and the preparation of the case for trial: see O 1 r 4A RSC.
The point just made was identified by Martin CJ in Roe v Western Australia,[39] following the earlier observations of Allanson J in Singh v Freidman.[40]
[39] Roe v The State of Western Australia [2013] WASC 130 [10] (Martin CJ) (Roe). See, more recently, Maek Pty Ltd v Ibrahim [2022] WASC 285 [25] - [27] (Quinlan CJ).
[40] Singh v Friedman [2013] WASC 78 [3] - [4] (Allanson J).
The then Chief Justice explained the approach to the ordering of discovery in this Court as follows:[41]
[10]... Put shortly, it is now established that general discovery is no longer regarded as a right. Rather, the extent of the obligation to give discovery and the entitlement to discovery will be fashioned having regard to the general principles that are articulated in the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and in particular the principles enunciated in O 1 r 4A and r 4B. Those principles include and expressly embody the notion of proportionality, which requires a court, before ordering any interlocutory process, to assess whether the forensic benefit to be derived by that process is proportional to the cost and delay which will flow from the undertaking of the process, having regard to the value, importance and complexity of the subject matter in dispute and the financial position of the parties.
[11]In the context of discovery, this means that when issues arise with respect to the breadth of the discovery to be ordered, the ambit of discovery will be determined taking into account the cost and delay associated with the provision of discovery over a broader ambit, as compared to the forensic benefit likely to be derived from the provision of discovery over that broader ambit. Unless the cost and delay involved in the provision of that discovery is proportionate to the forensic benefit likely to be derived from a broader ambit of discovery, and to the value and importance or complexity of the subject matter of the proceedings, a narrower ambit of discovery will be ordered.
[12]The only proposition I would add to the principles enunciated in the defendant's written submissions is the proposition that at least in cases such as this, when general discovery has not been sought or ordered, adjectival or indirect relevance of itself will no longer determine whether or not a document will be ordered to be discovered, and in particular the approach to general discovery enunciated in cases like CompagnieFinanciere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co(1882) 11 QBD 55 will no longer guide the court in relation to issues with respect to informal discovery.
[13]Rather, those issues will be determined by the balancing of the likely forensic benefit to be obtained against the risk of cost and delay in the manner that I have described, viewed in the context of the value, importance and complexity of the subject matter of the proceedings. In that context, the forensic significance of the issue in respect of which discovery is sought and the relevance of the documents sought to that issue, in a qualitative sense, will be pertinent to the proper disposition of any application for discovery.
[41] Roe [10] - [13] (Martin CJ).
In the present action, the approach adopted by this Court in ordering the categories of discovery was firmly focused on the touchstone of direct relevance, with due regard to the principles of proportionality.[42] As Smith J explained in Cove House Illiquid Investments DAC v YA Global Investments LP,[43] while accepting that the Peruvian Guano approach remained relevant in certain respects, a literal application of the 'line of enquiry' test 'can lead to discovery of epic proportions in large commercial cases', an outcome which this Court seeks to avoid where possible.
[42] Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 3] [2024] WASC 486 [9] - [13] (Lundberg J).
[43] Cove House Illiquid Investments DAC v YA Global Investments LP [2018] WASC 349 [37] (Smith J) (Cove House).
Smith J's observation echoes the sentiments of McKerracher J in relation to the rules of the Federal Court. In Schutz DSL (Aust) Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (No 14),[44] his Honour commented on the changes in approach since Peruvian Guano was decided, and the modern struggle that electronic reproduction 'has massively magnified the burden [of discovery] compared with the benefit'.[45] These observations were reiterated by Beach J in BlueScope Steel Limited v Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.[46] In BlueScope Steel, Beach J concluded that earlier cases addressing the breadth of discovery:[47]
[30]…were decided at a time when one did not have to concern oneself with the consequences of electronic information and communication including its storage, reproduction and exchange, which has considerably magnified the burden of giving discovery as compared with the benefit. Such a burden has been compounded by the incidences of different electronic forms, locations, computers, servers, email accounts, metadata issues, and retrieval problems. More generally, the idea that one should order general discovery of material of only tangential or second order relevance is unpalatable in the electronic age, particularly where the Peruvian Guano paradigm has no relevance to contemporary case management theory or its practice.
[44] Schutz DSL (Aust) Pty Ltd v VIP Plastic Packaging Pty Ltd (No 14) [2011] FCA 1159 [10] - [15] (McKerracher J) (Schutz).
[45] Schutz [11] (McKerracher J).
[46] BlueScope Steel Limited v Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd [2017] FCA 1537 [30] (Beach J) (BlueScope Steel).
[47] BlueScope Steel [30] (Beach J).
In my view, given the foregoing statements, it would be unduly expansive to construe and apply the masking provisions in O 26 r 1B RSC solely by reference to the 'line of enquiry' test, and to preclude a party from editing portions of a document on the basis the information is not directly relevant to the proceedings, but may fairly lead to a chain of inquiry.
To conclude the relevant inquiry at this point, and refrain from assessing the broader considerations, would likely undermine the original discovery regime ordered by the Court. I therefore do not accept the submission advanced on behalf of Mineralogy that the redaction process undertaken by the CITIC Parties has fundamentally miscarried, in the sense it was suggested the plaintiffs' solicitors had applied an incorrect conceptual approach to the task.[48]
[48] ts 1261.

The broader considerations in O 1 r 4A and r 4B RSC remain important to the Court's assessment, as explained by Corboy J in Minetec Pty Ltd v Frost.[49] It is necessary for the Court to assess how it should exercise the discretionary power to make orders for production against a party to the action, having regard to the potential importance of the documents to the position of the parties, the principle that discovery is invasive and ought be controlled by the Court, and the case management considerations prescribed in O 1 r 4A and O 1 r 4B RSC, particularly given the apparent size of the task to be undertaken, the resources required, the costs to be incurred, and the proximity of the trial. In the present case, issues of cost and proportionality have been addressed by Mr John in his affidavit, which I will return to below.[50]

Forensic fairness

[49] Minetec Pty Ltd v Frost [2011] WASC 145 [20] (Corboy J) (Minetec).

[50] John Affidavit [15]; PS [20] - [22].

Fifth, in assessing the manner in which information has been hidden through redactions in the discovery process, I consider it is appropriate to ensure that the redactions to the discovered documents do not render the documents unintelligible or deprive the opposing party of a fair, forensic ability to present its case. There will be instances where a redaction exercise in large scale discovery results in a denial to a party of contextual information which surrounds information that is directly relevant, which may thereby prejudice that party's ability to prepare and present their case. The Court has the power to ensure that redactions of this nature be removed in the interests of justice.
This point was highlighted by Mr Fawcett during his submissions, by reference to several of the documents, although the CITIC Parties contended this submission did not bear scrutiny.[51] In my view, the criticisms pressed by Mr Fawcett were soundly based.

Consistent application across the redactions

[51] PS [14].

Sixth, Mineralogy identified a number of instances in which the redactions applied by the CITIC Parties had been undertaken in an inconsistent manner across the documents.[52]
[52] ts 1272.
I did not detect the CITIC Parties to suggest this was not the case. Rather, the CITIC Parties point to the reality in a large scale discovery exercise that different reviewers may form different views as to relevance of certain information in documents.[53] The Court would expect that second and third layers of document review, and quality control processes, ought ameliorate or reduce these differences.

Onus on the Application

[53] ts 1279.

Seventh, as to the onus on an application such as this, there is much to be said for the approach favoured by Corboy J in Minetec in this regard. His Honour concluded that 'casting matters of practice and procedure in terms of onus is…rarely helpful'.[54] His Honour noted that the absence of evidence to satisfactorily establish irrelevance of edited information, or an inadequate explanation of how the disclosure of the hidden information is required to do justice between the parties, may of course tip the balance either way.[55]

Redactions for relevance only

[54] Minetec [25].

[55] Minetec [25].

Eighth, the redaction issues which are the subject of the present Application concern only redactions for relevance. No issues of privilege or confidentiality arise. Different considerations will apply where the redactions are made on those grounds.

G. Disposition

Having regard to the principles and approach I have outlined above, and on the basis of my review of the Mineralogy Discovery Sample, I formed the view that orders should be made on the first defendant's summons to require that certain redactions to those documents be removed, and that those conclusions be applied by the plaintiffs across the Mineralogy Discovery Sample and their broader discovery, insofar as it concerns the documents uniquely discovered in the 2023 MCP Proceedings. The specific redactions I consider ought be removed are addressed in the attachment to the orders, in the final column. My reasons for reaching these conclusions are as follows.
First, while I have rejected the submission that the CITIC Parties have used the redaction process to withhold damaging information, and I accept that many documents which are relevant to the action will not be 'single-issue' documents and so the proportion of documents redacted by the CITIC Parties may be higher than usual, I consider the proportion of the documents in the discovery pool which have been redacted is nonetheless relatively high. Around 15% of the documents in the discovery pool which have been uniquely discovered in the present action have been redacted. That proportion justifies additional vigilance on the part of the Court.
Second, I regard it as a relevant consideration on the present Application that the first defendant stands in a position of information asymmetry to the plaintiffs, as I have earlier articulated. As with the first point I have noted, this asymmetry supports an approach whereby a high degree of vigilance is required by the Court in assessing the redactions, to ensure that the first defendant is not placed in a position of disadvantage in a forensic sense.
Third, while the Court will be very mindful of the additional costs and effort involved in ordering that a party undertake discovery-related steps, particularly in a large scale discovery, the weight to be given to such matters needs to be tempered in the present case. I say this because the redactions were applied by the CITIC Parties in the first instance as part of its own discovery process, and conscious and voluntary decisions were made by the representatives of the CITIC Parties to edit the discovered documents pursuant to O 26 r 1B(1)(b) RSC. The redactions were made solely on relevance grounds as well, not based on the preservation of legal professional privilege, or for the protection of confidential information.
To the extent to which these conscious and voluntary decisions to redact the documents will lead to additional work on the part of the CITIC Parties in order to undo some of the redactions, following my assessment that the redactions have gone too far, this consideration attracts less weight in the circumstances.
Fourth, while the CITIC Parties have through their solicitors asserted in correspondence that the redactions made to the discovered documents are appropriate, no sworn evidence was filed by the CITIC Parties or their solicitors that directly makes this point. There is a statement in the John Affidavit that the HSF correspondence 'recorded that the CITIC Parties were satisfied that, save for some inconsistent redactions and other minor issues, the redactions effected to the Scheduled Documents were appropriate'.[56] This statement is not sufficient to give the Court the necessary comfort that the redaction process has been appropriately carried out and, in any event, the statement pertains only to the 245 documents in the Redacted Document Schedule.
[56] John Affidavit [7].
The absence of an affirmative statement on oath as to these matters tips the balance, to use the language employed by Corboy J, towards ordering a reconsideration of the redactions.
Fifth, in respect of some of the documents in the sample, it was evident to the Court that the majority if not the entirety of the document was directly relevant to the matters in issue in the proceeding, or would need to be disclosed to the first defendant to ensure the first defendant's representatives were able to properly prepare for trial and to conduct the trial. Two particular categories of documents should be mentioned here.
The first is listed in item 3 of the table in Attachment B, being the mining reports tabled at the management committee meetings. The second category is listed in item 4 of the table in Attachment B, being the Tailings Storage Facility Construction reports tabled at those meetings. On some slides within these documents, only a few words are visible. Numerous slides have been wholly redacted.
Based on my review of those documents, which as I have noted were redacted extensively by the CITIC Parties, I conclude that it would place the first defendant in a position of real forensic disadvantage not to have access to the entirety of the documents. In this regard, I observe that the documents are reports provided to the management committee, which I accept for present purposes is an important and central body within the Sino Iron Project. The documents are also focused on matters solely connected with the mining operations or the civil works associated with the Tailings Storage Facility. These matters arise on the pleadings.
Sixth, the foregoing may be contrasted with the approach to be adopted, in my view, in relation to the minutes of the management committee meetings. This category of documents, identified in item 1 of the table in Attachment B to these reasons, provides a useful example of the proposition emphasised by Mr Kirkwood SC for the CITIC parties that there are many documents discovered by the plaintiffs which are not 'single-issue' documents.
The Court has been provided with two sets of minutes of the meetings of the management committee for the Sino Iron Project (which are 10 pages and 8 pages in length). These appear to be the minutes of the regularly held meetings of that committee, attended by what appear to be senior representatives of the CITIC Parties. The minutes include standard or usual headings for the following issues:
(a)prior minutes and status updates;
(b)sustainability and environment updates;
(c)monthly production summary;
(d)monthly costs review and analysis;
(e)human resources update;
(f)mining;
(g)processing;
(h)port;
(i)power plant;
(j)desalination plant;
(k)capital management;
(l)tailings storage facility or TSF construction;
(m)asset management and safety training compliance;
(n)commercial and operational services; and
(o)summary of critical actions or remarks.
I estimate that less than 10% of these meeting minutes have not been redacted. That is, around 90% of the documents have been redacted. Given the broad range of matters covered by these meeting minutes, I do not find it surprising that these documents were extensively redacted by the CITIC Parties. Naturally, given the large number of operational issues addressed at these meetings, in respect of this significant iron ore project, many of the issues dealt with in the minutes are wholly irrelevant to the proceedings.
That said, on my review, there are portions or sections of these minutes which are relevant to the action and should be disclosed to the first defendant to ensure they are intelligible and not decontextualised to such an extent that the first defendant is unable to properly understand their significance to the case. There are matters in the minutes which relate to constraints on the mine pit as it presently stands, which are likely to be relevant at trial.
Redactions to meeting minutes also need to be carefully assessed to ensure the context of the matters which are disclosed is apparent. This is why the entire sections headed 'Mining', 'Processing' and 'TSF Construction' should be disclosed.
My conclusions in relation to the minutes of the management committee meetings apply equally to the POW Generated Works List. This document (and I infer other documents of this nature in the discovery) address many issues across the project, not all of which can be said to arise on the pleadings. The redactions in the Mining section, the Tailings Storage Facility section and the Action List should be removed.
Seventh, the long term planning documents, which are identified in item 7 in the table in Attachment B to these reasons, contain information under a heading 'Risk', which should be revealed, in my view. I agree with Mr Fawcett's assessment that information concerning 'unrealistic assumptions' upon which the life of mine plan was based are likely to be relevant to the matters in issue in this action. More broadly, information concerning long term planning matters should be revealed to the first defendant, as to which I refer to the document which is item 6 in the table.
Eighth, I turn to the production summary report, which is item 5 in the table in Attachment B. It is a very lengthy presentation style document, running to some 147 pages. A large number of the pages in the document have been wholly redacted such that, across the entirety of the document, information can be identified on only 11 of the pages. That said, only certain portions of the redactions to these documents should be removed, in the interests of fairness and to minimise forensic prejudice to Mineralogy and its legal team.
From my review, I formed the opinion there were portions of the documents which contained material of likely relevance to this action. I refer here in particular to the mining, processing and TSF construction aspects of the documents, and to the 'critical action' references, the 'ore hardness', the 'HPGR Project' and the sustainability of the project's operations.[57] I should make some brief comments on some of these matters.
[57] Meaning 'sustainability' in a broad and practical sense, rather than environmental sustainability which is not directly relevant.
The CITIC Parties dispute that the issue of 'ore hardness' is a matter which arises on the pleadings. The issue certainly does not strike me as a centrally relevant matter at this stage, but having regard to the passages in the witness statement filed by the CITIC Parties to which I was directed by Mr Fawcett,[58] I am able to conclude that this matter is likely to be relevant in that it is one of the issues affecting the rate of mining and processing.
[58] Witness statement of Robert Bruce Goodwin dated 23 November 2024 [140(a)], [408] and [411].
The 'HPGR Project' is said to be relevant to improving the efficiency of mining production. It is described in one of the documents as having a significant role to 'play in processing hard ores and increasing energy efficiency once in operation'. The issue is likely to be relevant to the broader issue of the constraints on the current mine pit, and information concerning this issue should not be redacted.
I was not satisfied that matters connected solely with 'collective bargaining' or 'high staff turnover' were relevant to matters in issue, however in broad terms, matters which refer to or discuss the sustainability of the project's operations seem to me to be likely to be relevant and should not be redacted. In the context of a dispute which concerns the present constraints on the project and its operations, in certain respects, information concerning the sustainability of the operations should be exposed to the first defendant through the discovery process.
On my review, the redaction of portions of these sections (noted at [99] above) hides information which is either directly relevant to the proceedings, is required to put the unredacted information in context and render it intelligible, or more broadly is needed to ensure the first defendant is not at a forensic disadvantage at the trial of this action.
Ninth, as to the document identified in item 8 in the table to Attachment B, the title to which includes the phrase 'TSF - Bob Goodwin', I accepted the submissions of Mr Fawcett that the relevance redactions ought be removed. The document includes information as to delays with particular works and geotechnical investigations which may affect the capacity of the current TSF, or may affect the expansion of the project. Such matters arise on the pleadings, and are addressed in Mr Goodwin's statement.
Tenth, the assurance program document, item 9 in the table to Attachment B, includes a slide setting out critical and major 'potential maximum consequence risks' to the project, categorised across each department of the project. Only one row in the slide was revealed in the discovered version of the document. The single row is labelled as follows - 'Tailings production exceeds approved holding capacity of the TSF'. The submission advanced by Mineralogy in support of the contention that the balance of the slide should be exposed, was as follows:
The reader cannot properly understand the relative severity of that risk or place it in its proper context without seeing the competing redacted risks. Those competing redacted risks are also relevant to the allegation that without the TSF proposed by the 2023 MCPs, the Project will be suspended, and, conversely, the approval of the TSF will enable the Project to continue operating and correlatively to avoid/minimise suspension (SOC [64] and [77]) because the presence of those other risks tends to prove that the Project may be suspended notwithstanding the approval of the proposed TSF.
At the very least, I accept that the editing of the slide to preclude Mineralogy seeing the additional identified risks is prejudicial to Mineralogy in a forensic sense, and it is in the interests of justice that the entirety of the slide be available. Counsel should be permitted to be in a position ahead of trial to understand the context surrounding the identified risk concerning the capacity of the TSF, in the context of the entirety of the project.
Eleventh, in requiring a reassessment of the redactions which have been made by the CITIC Parties, it should be noted, as is obvious perhaps, that the Court is not thereby expanding the size of the discovery document pool. Rather, the orders would only require the CITIC Parties to examine documents which they have already discovered and remove certain redactions.
Finally, having reached the above conclusions, I considered that a Court-ordered and structured process for the reconsideration of the redactions was preferable to a voluntary re-assessment process, such as the process offered (and implemented) by the CITIC Parties. The potential importance of the information in the proceedings is such that it should not be left to a voluntary, without prejudice process. So, to the extent to which the Court has a discretion to decline to make coercive orders in response to a discovery application which has been shown to have substance, I declined to exercise that discretion in that manner in this case.
It will not always be necessary for the Court to intervene in redaction disputes, but the present case is one where it was appropriate for the relevance of the documents to be assessed by the Court and for the fresh discovery process to be undertaken within the framework of a Court-ordered process. This is particularly so given the looming trial and the insoluble issues between the parties. Those insoluble issues would mean that the CITIC Parties' voluntary process would not address all of the concerns raised by Mineralogy.
I accordingly considered it appropriate that the Court make orders to expressly require the CITIC Parties reconsider the balance of their discovery, insofar as the documents which were uniquely discovered in the 2023 MCP Proceeding are concerned, consistent with the Court's analysis of the Mineralogy Discovery Sample.
I remained conscious of the broader case management considerations highlighted by senior counsel for the CITIC Parties, and recognised that the steps involved in requiring the solicitors for the CITIC Parties to undertake a further review of the discovered material will generate additional legal costs and distract them from the task of preparing their clients' case for trial.
I balanced these considerations against the point I made earlier, that the redactions were consciously imposed by the CITIC Parties, which lessens the force of these countervailing matters. I also recognise that the CITIC Parties have urged on the Court the listing of this action in a relatively urgent fashion, and those parties, being sophisticated and represented by experience litigators, can be presumed to have been aware of the potential turbulence which would be created by the application of redactions to these documents in the manner which has occurred. That turbulence has proven to be more than a mere potentiality, and has resulted in the present Application being filed, and led to these orders being made.

H. Conclusion and orders

For the foregoing reasons, I reached the conclusion that the redactions to the documents in the Mineralogy Discovery Sample were excessive and should be corrected by the CITIC Parties.
Further, adopting the sampling approach to the issue, I considered it appropriate to order that the CITIC Parties reconsider the redactions for relevance applied to the balance of its discovery, only to the extent it concerns documents uniquely discovered in the 2023 MCP Proceedings.
I did not hear argument, and received no evidentiary material, which would justify an order requiring a reconsideration of the redactions applied to the original discovery emanating from the 2017 MCP Proceeding.
The orders made by the Court are set out in Attachment A to these reasons. Following the issuing of those orders to the parties, the Court confirmed that the scope of orders 4 and 5 was confined as indicated above, at [114].

ATTACHMENT A
Orders made on 3 February 2025

ATTACHMENT B
Mineralogy Discovery Sample

Category No.	Document Type	References
1	Minutes of the Management Committee Meetings for the Sino Iron Project.	CPM.680.002.7135 CPM.680.015.6000
2	Programme of Work (POW) Generated Works List.	CPM.680.051.0953
3	Mining reports tabled at the Management Committee Meetings.	CPM.680.006.4232
4	Tailing Storage Facility (TSF) Construction reports tabled at the Management Committee Meetings.	CPM.680.005.5406 CPM.680.051.0409
5	Production Summary Report.	CPM.680.002.2591
6	Mine Tech Services Update.	CPM.680.006.4225
7	Production Management - Long and Medium Term Planning, Budgeting, Forecasting and Modelling.	CPM.680.002.4730 CPM.680.076.2104
8	CITIC Mining International (CMI) End Q2 2023 - TSF - Bob Goodwin.	CPM.680.040.3033
9	Assurance Program Presentation.	CPM.680.124.4170

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
IR
Associate to the Hon Justice Lundberg
7 FEBRUARY 2025