Mighty River International Ltd v Mineral Resources Ltd

[2020] WASCA 44

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Self-executing orders
4. › Springing order for dismissal
5. › Extension of time for compliance
6. › Consent orders based on underlying agreement
7. › Whether primary judge erred in refusing extension of time
8. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 3 r 5
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Consent orders
3. › Whether consent order based on underlying agreement or mere acquiescence
4. › Distinction between consent orders evidencing real contract and consent orders meaning 'not objecting'
5. › Weight to be given to agreement in exercise of discretion to vary interlocutory consent order
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal against discretionary decision
3. › House v The King error
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Whether primary judge failed to take into account material considerations
6. › Whether result unreasonable or plainly unjust
7. › Implied error
8. › Appellate restraint in matters of practice and procedure
1. Appeal
2. › Leave to appeal
3. › Interlocutory decisions
4. › Whether decision plainly wrong or attended by sufficient doubt

Quick Take

Where a consent order for security for costs contains a self-executing dismissal provision and is based on an underlying agreement between the parties, the court will give great weight to the agreement in exercising its discretion whether to extend time for compliance, though the circumstances need not be characterised as 'exceptional'. Prejudice to the defaulting party alone will rarely be sufficient to justify extension. An implied House v The King error may be found even where the primary judge has given reasons that do not themselves reveal error.