WMC Resources Ltd v Bulong Operations Pty Ltd - [2000] WASC 131

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WMC RESOURCES LTD -v- BULONG OPERATIONS PTY LTD & ORS [2000] WASC 131

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 10 MAY 2000

DELIVERED : 19 MAY 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 2454 of 1999

BETWEEN: WMC RESOURCES LTD (ACN 004 184 598)
Plaintiff
AND
BULONG OPERATIONS PTY LTD (ACN 008 930 881)
BULONG NICKEL PTY LTD (ACN 000 807 036)
First Defendants
RESOLUTE LTD (ACN 009 069 014)
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to adduce further evidence after hearing application for summary judgment but before judgment - Principles - Application of case flow management

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application granted

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr M J McCusker QC & Mr N P Gentilli
First Defendants           :     Ms C J McLure QC and Mr G I Brook
Second Defendant         :     Mr M L Bennett

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Jackson McDonald
First Defendants           :     Minter Ellison
Second Defendant         :     Bennett & Co

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

Barker v Furlong [1891] 2 Ch 172
Singh v Crafter, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 8434; 15 August 1990
Smith v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256
The State of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146
Watson v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust [1965] WAR 88

Case(s) also cited:

Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Patton, unreported; SCt of WA (Sanderson M); Library No 990111; 11 March 1999
Boucat Bay Co Ltd v The Commonwealth (1927) 40 CLR 98
Camatos Holdings Pty Ltd v Neil Civil Engineering (1992) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 596
Carlton & United Breweries Ltd v Long [1958] VR 539
Cellulose Acetate Silk Co Ltd v Widnes Foundry (1925) Ltd [1933] AC 20
Clydebank Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Don Jose Ramos Yzquierdo y Castaneda [1905] AC 6
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1981) 149 CLR 337
Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 143 FLR 18
Diestal v Stevenson [1906] 2 KB 345
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v New Garage and Motor Co [1915] AC 79
Forsayth NL v Northern Gold NL, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 940012; 20 January 1994
Fraser v Evans [1946] VLR 382
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 156 ER 145
Harlow & Jones Ltd v Panex (International) Ltd [1967] 2 LI LR 509
Hughes v Hill [1937] SASR 275
Hungerfords v Walker (1990) 171 CLR 125
Jacob v Booth's Distillery Co (1901) 85 LT 262
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Langdale v Danby [1982] 1 WLR 1123
Talley v Wolsey-Neech (1978) 38 P&CR 45 CA
Vitol SA v Phibro Energy AG (The Mathraki) [1990] 2 LI R 84
Warea Pty Ltd v Waterloo Industries Pty Ltd (1986) 66 ALR 537

MASTER SANDERSON: This is the first and second defendants' application for leave to rely upon certain affidavits in opposing the plaintiff's application for summary judgment. The affidavits in question are an affidavit of Garry Owen Frere, sworn…

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 WMC Resources Ltd v Bulong 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: [2000] WASC 131
Decision Date: 19 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, WMC Resources Ltd sought to adduce additional evidence in response to an application for summary judgment brought by Bulong Operations Pty Ltd. The parties were involved in a contractual dispute over a mining lease agreement. The primary issue before the court was whether WMC Resources Ltd could present further evidence after the conclusion of the hearing of the summary judgment application but before the judgment was made. This issue required the court to consider the principles of case flow management and the discretion of the court in allowing additional evidence.

The court held that the decision to permit further evidence was a matter of discretion and was informed by the principles of case flow management. The court acknowledged that the purpose of case flow management is to ensure that cases are heard and determined efficiently and effectively. In exercising its discretion, the court considered the potential impact of the additional evidence on the fairness of the proceedings and the efficiency of the case flow. The court determined that in this instance, the granting of an extension to adduce further evidence would not significantly impede the efficient progress of the case and would serve the interests of justice by ensuring that all relevant evidence was considered.

Consequently, the court allowed WMC Resources Ltd to present the additional evidence. The court's decision was grounded in the understanding that the principles of case flow management and the interests of justice must be balanced when considering applications for additional evidence. The court emphasised that while it is generally preferable to have all evidence before the court at the time of the hearing, exceptional circumstances may warrant an extension of time. In this case, the court found that the circumstances justified allowing the additional evidence to be presented.

The final orders of the court were that WMC Resources Ltd was permitted to adduce further evidence in response to the application for summary judgment, and the matter was to proceed accordingly. The court's decision underscored the importance of balancing the principles of case flow management with the need to ensure a fair and just outcome in the proceedings.

Orders