Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd

[2022] WASCA 26

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Strike-out
4. › Defence
5. › Whether pleas disclose reasonably arguable defence
6. › Fulcrum Purposes pleas
7. › Whether purposes of contract normalisation and costs recoupment capable of being inconsistent with alleged reasonable expectations
8. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 19, O 21 r 3
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Strike-out
4. › Abuse of process
5. › Whether pleas reproducing allegations from summarily dismissed application constitute abuse of process
6. › Whether pleas serving different forensic purpose in defence context
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Interlocutory decisions
4. › Leave to appeal
5. › Whether interests of justice require grant of leave
6. › Significance of case management role of primary judge
7. › Risk of re-trial if interlocutory error unreversed
8. › Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 60(1)(f)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Standard of appellate review
4. › Whether primary judge's decision independently founded on case management considerations
5. › Whether House v The King principles applicable
6. › Distinction between strike-out for failure to disclose reasonable defence and discretionary case management decision

Quick Take

Where a plaintiff's case depends on establishing a state of mind (such as reasonable expectations for estoppel), a defendant's plea that the plaintiff held purposes inconsistent with that state of mind (such as contract normalisation or costs recoupment) is capable of disclosing a reasonably arguable defence and should not be struck out. In assessing statutory unconscionability under s 21 of the ACL, the state of mind and purposes of the plaintiff party are arguably relevant to the normative assessment of the defendant's conduct. A refusal of a contractual request may be justified by a ground not known to the refusing party at the time, by analogy with the landlord and tenant consent cases.