Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [No 15]

The first defendant, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd (HPPL), and the second defendant, Hope Downs Iron Ore Pty Ltd (HDIO), have applied in each of the WPPL proceedings (CIV 3041 of 2010 and CIV 2617 of 2012) and the Rhodes proceeding (CIV 2737 of 2013) for the separate trial of certain issues. The HPPL parties sought to have issues of liability tried separately and before issues of remedies in each of the proceedings. They also sought to have certain issues, including the beneficial interest of Bianca and John in the Hope Downs and East Angelas tenements, determined separately and after the hearing of all other issues. The HPPL parties argued that the matters stayed by the July stay order in the Rhodes proceeding were no longer issues to be determined at the trial of the Rhodes proceeding. The Rhodes parties argued that the stay order did not have the effect submitted by the HPPL parties. The court found that the HPPL parties' application for the separate trial of issues in the Rhodes proceeding should be dismissed. In relation to the application for a separate trial of issues in the WPPL proceedings and the Rhodes proceeding, the court held that it would not order a separate trial of the issues sought by the HPPL parties. The court found that the separate trial of issues proposed by the HPPL parties would not resolve WPPL's claims or Rhodes' claims, and would give rise to significant contested factual issues. The court found that the utility, economy and fairness to the parties of the separate trial of the proposed issues was not made out. The court dismissed the HPPL parties' application for a separate trial of issues in the Rhodes proceeding and ordered that the issues of liability should be tried separately and before issues of remedies in each of the proceedings.