Farallon Mining Ltd. v. Watt

Farallon Mining Ltd. v. Watt

The counterclaim is dismissed as bound to fail because the defendants failed to plead or establish a bona fide triable issue: no enforceable contract existed between Watt and Hermiston due to uncertain consideration; the counterclaim does not plead the essential elements of tortious interference (no pleaded valid expectancy, knowledge by Farallon, unlawful means or proximate causation); the Mexican and Nevada proceedings preclude recovery of Campo Morado and this court cannot order its return; Gleason's investment claim similarly fails to plead required elements and is time/pleading deficient.

Citation
2013 BCSC 905
Parties
Plaintiff: Farallon Mining Ltd.; Defendant: Tim Watt; Defendant: Susan Gleason
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation and Slander of Title; Counterclaim for Contractual Interest and Tortious Interference / Application for Summary Judgment Under Rule 9 6(5) on Defendant Counterclaim; Decision on Dismissal
Outcome
Counterclaim dismissed (no genuine issue for trial)
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Tortious Interference, Enforceability of Informal/tacit Agreements, Statute of Limitations, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
English
Defamation Property/slander of Title Contract Law Tort: Interference With Economic Relations Civil Procedure: Summary Judgment International Litigation (mexican and Nevada Proceedings) Summary Judgment Tortious Interference +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farallon Mining Ltd.

Plaintiff

Tim Watt

Defendant

Susan Gleason

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation and Slander of Title; Counterclaim for Contractual Interest and Tortious Interference / Application for Summary Judgment Under Rule 9 6(5) on Defendant Counterclaim; Decision on Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' counterclaim raises a genuine issue for trial under Rule 9-6(5)
  2. 2 Whether an enforceable contract existed between Watt and Hermiston given uncertain consideration
  3. 3 Whether the counterclaim pleads the essential elements of the tort of interference with economic relations

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim is dismissed as bound to fail because the defendants failed to plead or establish a bona fide triable issue: no enforceable contract existed between Watt and Hermiston due to uncertain consideration; the counterclaim does not plead the essential elements of tortious interference (no pleaded valid expectancy, knowledge by Farallon, unlawful means or proximate causation); the Mexican and Nevada proceedings preclude recovery of Campo Morado and this court cannot order its return; Gleason's investment claim similarly fails to plead required elements and is time/pleading deficient.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed (no genuine issue for trial)

Orders

  • The defendants' counterclaims are dismissed as bound to fail
  • Farallon awarded costs of the counterclaim at Scale B to be paid forthwith after assessment