WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED -v- HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED [2013] WASC 248

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 248
Case No:	CIV:2617/2012	Heard:	27 FEBRUARY 2013
Coram:	LE MIERE J	Delivered:	2/07/13
No of pages:	29	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to apply for summary judgment out of time granted Application for summary judgment dismissed Application to strike out the statement of claim granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for leave to apply for summary judgment out of time Application for summary judgment Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 16 Turns on own facts Practice and procedure Application to strike out statement of claim Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Mining Act 1904 (WA) Mining Act 1978 (WA) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 16
Case References:	Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552 Aon Risk Services Pty Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 Australian Anglo American Prospecting Ltd v CRA Exploration Pty Ltd [1981] WAR 97 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Limited [1973] HCA 36; (1973) 129 CLR 99 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256 Clegg v Edmondson (1857) 44 ER 593 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337 Duke v Royalstar Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 273 Ernest v Vivian (1863) 33 LJ Ch 513 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 216 Nicholas v Western Australia [1972] WAR 168 Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118 Streeter v Western Areas Exploration Pty Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASCA 17; (2011) 278 ALR 291 The Commonwealth of Australia v The State of Western Australia [1999] HCA 5; (1999) 196 CLR 392 Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd (2011) 86 ALJR 1 Wright Prospecting Pty Limited v Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited [No 2] [2010] WASC 16

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED -v- HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED [2013] WASC 248 CORAM : LE MIERE J HEARD : 27 FEBRUARY 2013 DELIVERED : 2 JULY 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 2617 of 2012 BETWEEN : WRIGHT PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

HANCOCK PROSPECTING PTY LIMITED

First Defendant

HOPE DOWNS IRON ORE PTY LTD

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to apply for summary judgment out of time - Application for summary judgment - Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 16 - Turns on own facts

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out statement of claim -…

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 Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting 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: [2013] WASC 248
Decision Date: 2 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd, seeking relief for alleged breaches of contract. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central issue before the court was whether Wright Prospecting was entitled to apply for summary judgment outside the usual time constraints and whether the statement of claim should be struck out. The court considered the procedural history and the arguments presented by both parties regarding the timeliness of the application for summary judgment and the validity of the statement of claim.

The court determined that the application for leave to apply for summary judgment out of time should be granted, recognising that the matter turned on its own unique facts. However, the application for summary judgment itself was dismissed, as the court found that the plaintiff's case did not meet the criteria for such a judgment. Furthermore, the court held that the application to strike out the statement of claim should be granted, as it found that the statement of claim was invalid based on the specific circumstances of the case. The court's reasoning focused on the procedural aspects and the facts of the case, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claims were not substantiated under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).

The court's final orders were that the application for leave to apply for summary judgment out of time was granted, the application for summary judgment was dismissed, and the application to strike out the statement of claim was granted. These orders reflect the court's assessment of the procedural issues and the substantive merits of the case as presented by the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to apply for summary judgment out of time granted

Application for summary judgment dismissed

Application to strike out the statement of claim granted

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.