VM DRILLING PTY LTD -v- RICHMOND MINING LTD [2010] WADC 176 (29 November 2010)

Last Updated: 1 December 2010

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH

CITATION : VM DRILLING PTY LTD -v- RICHMOND MINING LTD [2010] WADC 176

CORAM : DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN

HEARD : 10 NOVEMBER 2010

DELIVERED : 29 NOVEMBER 2010

FILE NO/S : CIV 3445 of 2009

BETWEEN : VM DRILLING PTY LTD (ACN 111 462 947)

Plaintiff

AND

RICHMOND MINING LTD (ACN 123 423 987)

Defendant

Catchwords:
Practice - Western Australia - Practice under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 - Application to strike parts of a pleading - Turns on its facts

Legislation:
Nil

Result:
Application successful

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr K Christianson

Defendant : Mr P N Poliwka

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Gadens Lawyers

Defendant : Q Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7; (1988) 164 CLR 387

1 DEPUTY REGISTRAR HARMAN: The plaintiff's claim is for the cost of services provided to the defendant under an agreement to undertake drilling work on its behalf. In essence, it alleges that it undertook work pursuant to an agreement, issued an invoice and that in breach of the agreement the defendant has failed to pay the amount due.

2 The plaintiff takes issue with two aspects of the defence whereby it pleads forms of estoppel. Part of the contest in relation to the plea of equitable estoppel, was disposed of at the hearing. The issues that remain to consider are the broader scope of the pleading of equitable estoppel and a representation estoppel.

3 As to the first, the essence of the plaintiff's submission is that the defendant has pleaded no more than that it is unconscionable for the plaintiff to invoice the defendant contrary to its representation and that the defendant relied upon the representation. According to Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7; (1988) 164 CLR 387 without more such a plea is insufficient to bar the plaintiff's claim.

4 As to the second, essentially the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is estopped from alleging that breach of the agreement could be attributed to the context in which the services were to be provided. The fundamental consideration is that the plaintiff makes no such allegation. In my opinion that is the end of the matter.