Westraint Resources v BHP Iron Ore (No 4) [2009] WASC 17

Westraint Resources Pty Ltd v BHP Iron Ore Pty Ltd (No 4) [2009] WASC 17 (5 February 2009).

Preliminary

The recent decision of Le Miere J in a protracted contractual dispute involving BHP Billiton and Westraint highlights the critical relationship between the business process of information management, and the legal process of discovery.

The process of giving discovery can be onerous for some organisations. However, diligent and proactive information management readily ensures that an organisation is in a position to comply with its discovery obligations, including justification of "reasonable searches", without fear of oppression.

Litigation Timeline

• 1986 - 1988 – BHP Iron Ore ("BHPIO") and Westraint Resources Pty Ltd ("WR") (formerly Hancock Resources Limited) enter into multiple complex contractual agreements in relation to the supply of iron ore to Romania.
• Time period on and after August 1990 - WR alleges that BHPIO breached agreements.
• 1996 - Proceeding commences in Supreme Court of Western Australia.
• 1997 - 1998 - WR files Statement of Claim.
• 1996 - 2002 - BHPIO gives discovery to WR.
• March 2003 - WR applies for further discovery from BHPIO.
• April 2008 – WR files amended application for further discovery from BHPIO.
• July 2008 – Application hearing.
• 5 February 2009 – WR's application dismissed.

Application for Further Discovery of Particular Documents

This image in Portable Document Format (PDF).

Related Case Law

The principles that form this decision may be interpreted consistently with the following recent case law:

• Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Public Transport Authority of Western Australia [2007] WASC 65; and
• Slick v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2006] FCA 1712.