Willis v Normandy Golden Grove Operations Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 138

WILLIS -v- NORMANDY GOLDEN GROVE OPERATIONS PTY LTD [2003] WADC 138

Last Update: 30/06/2003

WILLIS -v- NORMANDY GOLDEN GROVE OPERATIONS PTY LTD [2003] WADC 138
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 138
Case No:	CIV:3050/2001	Heard:	4 JUNE 2003
Coram:	JENKINS DCJ	Delivered:	19/06/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	16	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	RAYMOND DAVID WILLIS NORMANDY GOLDEN GROVE OPERATIONS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Amendment of pleadings Belated application to amend defence No injustice or prejudice Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Case References:	Baume v Commonwealth (1906) 4 CLR 97 Clough & Rogers v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481 Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 HD 700 Flower and Hart (a firm) v White Industries (QLD) Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR 134 Grljusich v Grljusich, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930253; 6 May 1993 Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26 Hewitt v Benale and WMC Resources Ltd v Koljibabic [2002] WASCA 163 Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 22 Koljibabic v WMC Resources Ltd [2001] WADC 286 State of Queensland & Anor vJL Holdings Pty Ltd(1997) 189 CLR 146 Thomas v Arimco Mining Pty Ltd & Anor [2000] WADC 150 Tony Sadler Pty Ltd v McLeod Nominees Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 323 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 Hall Chadwick Corp Finance (WA) Pty Ltd v Axiom Properties Ltd [2002] WASC 179 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 Palata Investments Ltd v Burt & Sinfield Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 942 Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 Rebolledo v Royal & Sun Alliance Financial Services Ltd [2002] NSWSC 104 Smith v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd [2002] WADC 46

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : WILLIS -v- NORMANDY GOLDEN GROVE OPERATIONS PTY LTD [2003] WADC 138 CORAM : JENKINS DCJ HEARD : 4 JUNE 2003 DELIVERED : 19 JUNE 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 3050 of 2001 BETWEEN : RAYMOND DAVID WILLIS

Plaintiff

AND

NORMANDY GOLDEN GROVE OPERATIONS PTY LTD

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Amendment of pleadings - Belated application to amend defence - No injustice or prejudice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr R J L McCormack

Defendant : Ms F C E Davis

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bradley & Bayly

Defendant : Phillips Fox

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

Baume v Commonwealth (1906) 4 CLR 97
Clough & Rogers v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700
Flower and Hart (a firm) v White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd (1999) 87 FCR 134
Grljusich & Anor v Grljusich, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930253; 6 May 1993
Hazart Pty Ltd v…

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 Willis v Normandy Golden Grove Operations Pty Ltd 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: [2003] WADC 138
Decision Date: 19 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Willis v Normandy Golden Grove Operations Pty Ltd involved a dispute concerning an application by the defendant to amend their defence, which had been filed outside the time limit set by the court. The applicant, Willis, sought damages for personal injuries sustained during the defendant's mining operations. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which ultimately dismissed the appeal brought by the defendant regarding the refusal of their application to amend the pleadings.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the court should permit the amendment of the defence despite the lateness of the application and whether such an amendment would cause any injustice or prejudice to the plaintiff. The defendant argued that the amendment was necessary to address a specific issue that had not been contemplated at the time of the original pleadings, and that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the delay.

The court examined the circumstances of the case, including the reasons for the delay and the potential impact on the plaintiff. It found that the defendant's application did not demonstrate any substantial prejudice to the plaintiff and that the amendment related to a matter that was within the scope of the original pleadings. The court concluded that the amendment could be made without causing any injustice, given the unique facts of this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court's earlier decision to refuse the amendment stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.