Zinc Corporation Pty Ltd v Pasminco Australia Ltd

Zinc Corporation Pty Ltd brought an action against Pasminco Australia Ltd in the Supreme Court of Queensland, seeking claims for indemnity, estoppel by convention, and damages under the Trade Practices Act. The defendants sought to stay or strike out the plaintiffs' claims on various grounds, including that they were hopeless or untenable under Rule 23.02 of the Supreme Court Rules. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' indemnity claims were inadmissible to proof under the defendant companies' deeds of company arrangement and could not be set off against the defendants' entitlement to apportionment under Workers Compensation legislation. The defendants also raised concerns about the pleading of Anshun claims and Trade Practices Act claims, suggesting that these claims might be embarrassing to the defendants.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs' claims were so lacking in merit that they should be stayed or struck out. It examined the nature of the indemnity claims, the applicability of estoppel by convention, and whether the claims could be set off against the defendants' apportionment rights under Workers Compensation legislation. The court also evaluated the implications of Anshun estoppel and the admissibility of Trade Practices Act claims in the context of the deeds of company arrangement. Ultimately, the court found that the claims were not hopeless or unarguable and, therefore, should not be stayed or struck out. The court noted that while some claims might be embarrassing to the defendants, this alone was not sufficient grounds for dismissal.

In light of its findings, the court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims should proceed. The defendants' application to stay or strike out the claims was dismissed. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for indemnity, estoppel by convention, and Trade Practices Act damages were admissible to proof and could be considered alongside the defendants' apportionment rights under Workers Compensation legislation. The court also concluded that, while some aspects of the pleading might be embarrassing, they did not warrant the dismissal of the claims.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the defendants' application to stay or strike out the plaintiffs' claims. The case was to proceed to trial, with the plaintiffs' claims for indemnity, estoppel by convention, and damages under the Trade Practices Act remaining on foot. The court's decision clarified the admissibility of these claims in the context of the deeds of company arrangement and Workers Compensation legislation.