WMC Resources Ltd v Roche Mining Pty Ltd - [2004] WASC 76

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WMC RESOURCES LTD -v- ROCHE MINING PTY LTD [2004] WASC 76

CORAM: MASTER NEWNES

HEARD: 22 MARCH 2004

DELIVERED : 30 APRIL 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 2268 of 2003

BETWEEN: WMC RESOURCES LTD (ACN 004 184 598)
Plaintiff
AND
ROCHE MINING PTY LTD (ACN 004 142 223)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Defendant's application for summary judgment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court1971 (WA), O 16

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr W S Martin QC & Mr N P Gentilli
Defendant: Mr J Gilmour QC & Mr S M Davies

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Jackson McDonald
Defendant: Minter Ellison

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

Day v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Can Co Pty Ltd v Levin & Co Pty Ltd [1947] VLR 332
Carter v Hyde (1923) 33 CLR 115
Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd v Quinn (1910) 10 CLR 674
Laybutt v Amoco Australia Pty Ltd (1974) 132 CLR 57
McDonald v Robins (1954) 90 CLR 515

MASTER NEWNES: This is an application by the defendant for summary judgment under O 16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court1971 (WA), alternatively for an order striking out the statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or parts of it on the ground they are embarrassing.
It was acknowledged by the defendant's counsel that the matter is complicated. In support of the application, the defendant filed an affidavit of Scott McConnell, sworn 25 November 2003, which, with exhibits, ran to 378 pages. The plaintiff filed in response an affidavit of David Berrie which, with exhibits, comprised 113 pages and the defendant replied with a further affidavit of Mr McConnell which, with exhibits, comprised 156 pages. Most of the exhibits consist of agreements relating to complicated multi‑party financing transactions. It is the financing transactions that lie at the heart of the plaintiff's claim in the present proceedings and of the present application. The defendant contends that the contractual documents demonstrate that the plaintiff's claim is untenable.
The relevant parts of the statement of claim are as follows:
"The Parties
1.The plaintiff is a duly incorporated company and at all material times carried on mining operations at a site at Mt Keith, in Western Australia.
2.The defendant is a duly incorporated company, was formerly called Roche Bros Pty Ltd, and at all material times carried on business as a mining contractor.
3.Downer Group Finance Pty Limited ('Downer') is a duly incorporated company, was formerly called Downer Group Limited and at all material times was the parent company of the defendant.
4.At all material times, each of Pacatus Pty Ltd ('Pacatus'), MTK Equipment Pty Ltd ('MTK'), Keith Rentals Pty Ltd ('Keith Rentals'), Kingston Factors Pty Ltd ('Kingston'), Caterpillar Financial Australia Ltd ('CFAL'), Meridian International Capital Ltd ('Meridian') and Gwynvill Finance Pty Ltd ('Gwynvill') was a duly incorporated company.

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 WMC Resources Ltd v Roche Mining Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: WMC Resources Ltd v Roche Mining Pty Ltd [2004] WASC 76
Case: [2004] WASC 76
Decision Date: 30 APRIL 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

WMC Resources Ltd initiated proceedings against Roche Mining Pty Ltd, seeking damages for breach of contract. The dispute arose from a contract for the supply of equipment and services related to mining operations. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Roche Mining applied for summary judgment, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact that required a trial and that WMC Resources was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court was required to determine whether Roche Mining's application for summary judgment should be granted. This involved examining whether there were any genuine issues of material fact in dispute and whether WMC Resources was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court needed to assess the evidence provided by both parties and determine whether the facts as presented by WMC Resources were sufficient to establish a breach of contract.

The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded the granting of summary judgment. It held that the evidence presented by WMC Resources raised questions about the nature of the contractual obligations and the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach. The court concluded that these issues required resolution through a full trial rather than being decided on a summary judgment motion. Consequently, the court dismissed Roche Mining's application for summary judgment.

The court's decision meant that the matter would proceed to a full trial. The final orders included the dismissal of Roche Mining's application for summary judgment and the direction that the case proceed to trial on the merits.

Orders