Allstate Explorations NL & Ors v Beaconsfield Gold & Ors [1999] NSWSC 39

Allstate Explorations NL & Ors v Beaconsfield Gold & Ors [1999] NSWSC 39

The proposed amended Cross Claim, by pleading that the Manager was bound to carry out joint venture activities on behalf of the joint venturers and to manage, supervise and conduct those activities in a good, workmanlike and cost effective manner, pleaded enough to disclose a reasonable cause of action alleging fiduciary duties. Absence of informed consent was not an essential element required to be pleaded by the cross claimants, but a matter of defence. The alleged benefits from salary mark-ups and management fees were sufficiently identified for pleading purposes. The defendants were therefore granted an extension of time and leave to file an amended Cross Claim generally in accordance...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceedings Concerning a Joint Venture Mining Agreement and Alleged Fiduciary Duties / Hearing of Defendants' Notice of Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to File a Further Amended Defence and Cross Claim
Outcome
Time extended and leave granted to defendants to file a further amended Defence and Cross Claim; costs stood over for argument.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'amendment of Cross Claim' 'strike Out Application' 'fiduciary Relationship' 'joint Venture' 'informed Consent as Defence' 'reasonable Cause of Action']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity'] ['pleadings' 'amendment of Cross Claim' 'strike Out Application' 'fiduciary Relationship' 'joint Venture' 'informed Consent as Defence' 'reasonable Cause of Action']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings Concerning a Joint Venture Mining Agreement and Alleged Fiduciary Duties / Hearing of Defendants' Notice of Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to File a Further Amended Defence and Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed amended Cross Claim pleaded sufficient material facts to give rise to a fiduciary relationship between the first plaintiff as Manager and the defendants as joint venturers.' 'Whether absence of knowledge or informed consent by the defendants or the Management Committee was an essential element to be pleaded by the cross claimants or a matter of defence.' 'Whether the alleged benefits obtained by the first plaintiff were sufficiently identified in the proposed pleading.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amended Cross Claim, by pleading that the Manager was bound to carry out joint venture activities on behalf of the joint venturers and to manage, supervise and conduct those activities in a good, workmanlike and cost effective manner, pleaded enough to disclose a reasonable cause of action alleging fiduciary duties. Absence of informed consent was not an essential element required to be pleaded by the cross claimants, but a matter of defence. The alleged benefits from salary mark-ups and management fees were sufficiently identified for pleading purposes. The defendants were therefore granted an extension of time and leave to file an amended Cross Claim generally in accordance...

Court Disposition

Time extended and leave granted to defendants to file a further amended Defence and Cross Claim; costs stood over for argument.

Orders

  • ['I extend the time in which the defendants may file a further amended Defence and Cross Claim to 14 days after the date of this judgment.' 'I give leave to the defendants to include in such amended Cross Claim matters generally in accordance with this judgment.' 'I will hear argument on the question of costs.']