Westmobro Pty Ltd v Mallet - [2020] WASC 415

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   WESTMOBRO PTY LTD -v- MALLET [2020] WASC 415
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   30 SEPTEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   18 NOVEMBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   18 NOVEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3067 of 2019
BETWEEN:   WESTMOBRO PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
MARIE-HELENE MALLET
First Defendant
LIGHTHOUSE EQUITY PTY LTD
Second Defendant
DALE ALCOCK HOMES PTY LTD
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to stay proceedings based on 'Anshun estoppel' - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Action stayed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	C Chenu
First Defendant	:	GW Provan
Second Defendant	:	GW Provan
Third Defendant	:	P Monaco

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Kings Park Legal
First Defendant	:	Provan Legal Pty Ltd
Second Defendant	:	Provan Legal Pty Ltd
Third Defendant	:	GV Lawyers

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

Gibbs v Kinna [1998] VSCA 52

MASTER SANDERSON:

By chamber summons filed 23 June 2020 the first and second defendants sought, in the alternative, three orders. First, it sought to have the action permanently stayed or dismissed, on the basis of what is generally known as 'Anshun estoppel' or as an abuse of process. If that application was unsuccessful, it sought to have the matter referred to the Magistrates Court – it was submitted the claim was within the jurisdiction of that court. If both of these applications failed, then the defendants sought an order for security for costs. In my view the defendants succeed in each of their three applications. Having decided to permanently stay the matter it is not strictly necessary for me to deal with each of the other applications. However, for the sake of completeness, I will say something about each application.
The plaintiff filed a statement of claim on 3 June 2020. It carries on the business of building design. At all material times the first defendant was the registered proprietor of a property in Cloverdale. The second defendant is the alter ego of the first defendant. The third defendant is a well‑known building company.
The statement of claim pleaded in or about March 2013 the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff would carry out design services for 16 multiple dwellings to be constructed on the Cloverdale property. Particulars were provided. The agreement was said to be partly oral and partly in writing. The plaintiff claimed pursuant to the agreement it produced and provided plans, drawings and specifications to the first defendant.
Importantly the plaintiff pleads the defendants were not authorised by agreement, licence or otherwise to use the plaintiff's plan for the construction of any development. Despite that, on 18 July 2014 the City of Belmont approved a development in accordance with the plans. The third defendant was engaged to construct the development. The plaintiff says the construction was substantially in accordance with the documents. The plaintiff alleges a breach of copyright by…

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.

Continue reading Westmobro Pty Ltd v Mallet

Details

AGLC: Westmobro Pty Ltd v Mallet [2020] WASC 415
Case: [2020] WASC 415
Decision Date: 18 NOVEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Westmobro Pty Ltd v Mallet involved a dispute between two companies, Westmobro Pty Ltd and Mallet, which came before the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an agreement between the parties that was being contested on the basis of an alleged breach. Mallet sought to stay the proceedings on the basis of what is known as Anshun estoppel, a principle which prevents a party from relying on matters that were or could have been raised in a previous proceeding, if doing so would be unfair to the other party.

The central legal issue that the court had to determine was whether the Anshun estoppel applied to prevent Mallet from pursuing certain claims that were or could have been raised in a prior proceeding. The court needed to assess whether the doctrine of Anshun estoppel was applicable and if so, whether it should be invoked in this particular case. The court considered whether the circumstances were such that it would be unfair for Mallet to rely on the claims that were not raised previously.

The court held that the doctrine of Anshun estoppel did apply in this instance. The reasoning was based on the fact that the issues were closely related to those in the previous proceeding, and it would be inequitable for Mallet to pursue the claims that were or could have been raised previously. The court emphasised that the application of Anshun estoppel depends on the specific facts of each case, and in this instance, it found that the doctrine should be invoked to prevent an unfair outcome. Consequently, the court stayed the proceedings in favour of Westmobro Pty Ltd.

The Federal Court's decision resulted in the proceedings being stayed, with Mallet being precluded from pursuing the claims that were or could have been raised in the prior proceeding. This outcome highlights the importance of considering the applicability of Anshun estoppel in cases where related matters have been previously considered, and the need for parties to be mindful of the potential consequences of not raising relevant issues in the appropriate forum.

Orders