Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Limited v Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd

The case between Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal Pty Limited and Civil Mining and Construction Pty Ltd was brought before the court to resolve a dispute concerning significant financial claims. The respondent, Civil Mining and Construction, sought approximately $14.5 million from the appellant, Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal, who counterclaimed for about $12.5 million. The trial spanned 36 days, culminating in a judgment exceeding 300 pages. One of the respondent's claims pertained to costs associated with delays, which were attributed to the appellant. The respondent proposed a specific method for calculating these delay costs but later introduced a new method in its closing submissions without seeking permission to reopen its case. The appellant did not object to the new method but suggested modifications to it. The trial judge accepted the new method with the appellant's proposed modifications, necessitating further submissions from the parties to implement these changes.

The legal issues the court had to address revolved around the admissibility and application of the new method of calculation proposed by the respondent at the closing stage of the trial. The appellant argued that if the new method was accepted, certain modifications should be applied to it, while the respondent sought to present expert evidence to quantify the delay costs under this new method. The court's task was to determine whether the trial judge erred in granting leave to the respondent to reopen its case and whether such an error would result in a substantial injustice. The respondent's application to reopen its case was pivotal, as it aimed to present expert evidence to quantify the delay costs under the newly proposed method, which required further clarification and agreement on the modifications suggested by the appellant.

The court found that the order granting leave to the respondent to reopen its case was erroneous and would result in a substantial injustice. The trial judge had required further submissions on how the modifications to the new method of calculation should be implemented. However, the court noted that the trial had proceeded in the usual manner, with the parties expected to present all evidence before making final submissions. The respondent's attempt to introduce a new method of calculation at the closing stage, without seeking leave to reopen its case, was improper. The court held that the respondent's case should have been concluded based on the evidence already presented, and the trial judge's decision to allow the respondent to reopen its case to present expert evidence on the new method was an error. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders granting leave to reopen the case and reserving costs, and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.