ST BARBARA LTD -v- HUGHES [No 2] [2011] WASCA 235

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WASCA 235
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:102/2008	Heard:	17 & 18 AUGUST 2011
Coram:	MARTIN CJ PULLIN JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	1/11/11
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ST BARBARA LTD ZYGOT LTD BRYAN KEVIN HUGHES (As Trustee of the Kingstream Steel Creditors' Trust)
Catchwords:	Interlocutory appeal Appeal against order granting leave to amend writ and statement of claim Whether a 'new' cause of action Leave to appeal granted Appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 5(5)
Case References:	Dallas Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 980245, 7 May 1998) Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474 Weldon v Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ST BARBARA LTD -v- HUGHES [No 2] [2011] WASCA 235 CORAM : MARTIN CJ

PULLIN JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 17 & 18 AUGUST 2011 DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CACV 102 of 2008 BETWEEN : ST BARBARA LTD

First Appellant

ZYGOT LTD

Second Appellant

AND

BRYAN KEVIN HUGHES (As Trustee of the Kingstream Steel Creditors' Trust)

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : NEWNES J

Citation : HUGHES -v- ST BARBARA MINES LTD [No 3] [2008] WASC 220

File No : CIV 1913 of 2002

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Interlocutory appeal - Appeal against order granting leave to amend writ and statement of claim - Whether a 'new' cause of action - Leave to appeal granted - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 5(5)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant : Mr C R C Newlinds SC & Mr I Pike

Second Appellant : Mr C R C Newlinds SC & Mr I Pike

Respondent : Mr R M Smith SC & Mr T O Coyle

Solicitors:

First Appellant : Tottle Partners

Second Appellant : Tottle Partners

Respondent : Lavan Legal

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

Dallas Development Corporation Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority (Unreported, WASCA, Library No 980245, 7 May 1998)
Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474
Weldon v Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394

(Page 3)

1 MARTIN CJ: This application for leave to appeal should be granted, but the appeal dismissed for the reasons given by Pullin JA with which I agree.

2 PULLIN JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against an order granting the respondent leave to amend his writ and statement of claim. The amendment introduced into the writ a cause of action against the appellants for damages for breach of contract. The indorsement introduced into the writ by the amendment asserted…

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 St Barbara Ltd v Hughes [No 2] 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: [2011] WASCA 235
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

St Barbara Ltd v Hughes [No 2] is an interlocutory appeal where St Barbara Ltd sought to appeal against an order granting leave to Hughes to amend his writ and statement of claim. The underlying dispute is an action brought by Hughes against St Barbara Ltd in relation to alleged breaches of statutory duty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic). The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether Hughes' proposed amendments to his statement of claim constituted a 'new' cause of action. St Barbara Ltd argued that the amendments amounted to a new cause of action that was not permissible. The Court had to consider whether the amendments introduced new facts or legal theories that went beyond the scope of the original claim. The Court needed to balance the principles of procedural fairness against the need to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the legal process.

The Court held that the amendments proposed by Hughes did not constitute a new cause of action but rather were an elaboration of the existing claims. The amendments sought to clarify the factual basis and legal arguments supporting Hughes' claims. The Court was satisfied that the amendments were within the scope of the original writ and did not introduce any new claims or parties. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the trial judge to grant leave to amend. The Court also noted that the grant of leave to amend was not an abuse of process.

The final orders of the Court were that leave to appeal was granted but the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.