Newcrest Mining Limited v Apache Northwest Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1527

Newcrest Mining Limited v Apache Northwest Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1527

The applicant's federal claim is not colourable or bound to fail; there is reasonable cause to believe it may have a right to relief. The conditions of O 15A r 6 of the Federal Court Rules are satisfied. The Court has jurisdiction and Apache should provide discovery as sought.

Parties
Applicant: Newcrest Mining Limited; First Respondent: Apache Northwest Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Santos (BOL) Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Preliminary Discovery / Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Application granted in part; preliminary discovery ordered; application against second respondent dismissed with no order as to costs; costs awarded to applicant against first respondent; further hearing adjourned sine die.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Discovery, Jurisdiction, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct
Practice and Procedure Trade Practices Preliminary Discovery Jurisdiction Misleading and Deceptive Conduct

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newcrest Mining Limited

Applicant

Apache Northwest Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Santos (BOL) Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Preliminary Discovery / Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application for preliminary discovery
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's federal claim is colourable or bound to fail
  3. 3 Whether the conditions for preliminary discovery under O 15A r 6 are satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's federal claim is not colourable or bound to fail; there is reasonable cause to believe it may have a right to relief. The conditions of O 15A r 6 of the Federal Court Rules are satisfied. The Court has jurisdiction and Apache should provide discovery as sought.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; preliminary discovery ordered; application against second respondent dismissed with no order as to costs; costs awarded to applicant against first respondent; further hearing adjourned sine die.

Orders

  • First respondent to file and serve a verified list of documents relating to allocation and processing of gas, firm commitments, and proposed step-down and step-up in allocations, by 30 October 2008.
  • First respondent to pay applicant's costs of the application.