Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd -v- Hamersley Iron Pty Limited [No2] [2013] NSWSC 709

Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd -v- Hamersley Iron Pty Limited [No2] [2013] NSWSC 709

The present broad non-publication application could not be justified because parts of the documents had been referred to in open court and the documents were potentially material to an important issue. On costs, there was no basis to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event: the proceedings were conducted economically by sophisticated parties, refinement of issues was inevitable, abandoned evidence and claims shortened the hearing, substantial discovery was inevitable, and no sufficient wastage was demonstrated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Commercial List Costs and Non Publication Ruling After Principal Judgment / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
The non-publication application was dismissed with a temporary limited publication restriction; verdicts and judgments were entered against the second defendant, claims against the first defendant and other cross-defendants were dismissed, and the second defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's and third...
Legal Topics
['costs Following the Event' 'issue Based Costs' 'non Publication Orders' 'commercially Sensitive Evidence']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders'] ['costs Following the Event' 'issue Based Costs' 'non Publication Orders' 'commercially Sensitive Evidence']

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 Division Commercial List Costs and Non Publication Ruling After Principal Judgment / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether publication of three commercially sensitive documents in evidence should be restricted under s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW).' "Whether the second defendant should pay all of the plaintiff's and third defendant/cross-claimant's costs, or only reduced percentages because of alleged wastage of costs."]

Ratio Decidendi

The present broad non-publication application could not be justified because parts of the documents had been referred to in open court and the documents were potentially material to an important issue. On costs, there was no basis to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event: the proceedings were conducted economically by sophisticated parties, refinement of issues was inevitable, abandoned evidence and claims shortened the hearing, substantial discovery was inevitable, and no sufficient wastage was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

The non-publication application was dismissed with a temporary limited publication restriction; verdicts and judgments were entered against the second defendant, claims against the first defendant and other cross-defendants were dismissed, and the second defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's and third...

Orders

  • ['The present application for non-publication orders is dismissed.' 'Up to and including 21 June 2013, publication of the Channar Mining Joint Venture Agreement dated 16 November 1987, the Partnership Agreement between Channar Mining Pty Ltd and others dated 24 May 1988, and the Master Restructure Deed for the...