GOLDEN MILE MILLING PTY LTD -v- LAKEWOOD MINING PTY LTD [2026] WASC 10 | Case summary

Supreme Court of WA|2026-01-20

For the reasons stated above, I am not satisfied that Golden Mile should have leave to file a substituted statement of claim as pleaded in the Minute. Leave to do so is refused.

Should Golden Mile have leave to re-plead its claims by filing a further substituted statement of claim?

Although not clearly articulated in the Minute, I am satisfied that Golden Mile's claim for conversion, as expressed by counsel on its behalf, differs from that adjudicated on by the registrar and is reasonably arguable. I am also satisfied that the deficiencies identified in relation to the pleading of the conversion claim and the rectification claim (in so far as it relates to the alleged common intention) are capable of being overcome by an adequate pleading of the necessary material facts to establish the causes of action relied on.

For these reasons, leave to file the Minute is refused and the Application is dismissed with leave for Golden Mile to re-plead its claims for rectification and conversion.
I will make orders to the following effect and will hear from the parties in relation to the orders to be made as to the costs of the Application and consequential orders, including as to the time for the filing of any further substituted statement of claim, if such are not agreed:

The plaintiff's application for leave to file the Minute is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff has leave to re-plead its claims for rectification and conversion. 3. By 30 January 2026, the parties are to confer in relation to the costs of the Application and any further orders, and:

(a) if agreement is reached, file a memorandum of agreed orders;
>
> (b) if agreement is not reached, each party is to file a minute of proposed orders in relation to the costs of the Application and any further orders.

I am conscious of the quantum of Golden Mile's claim which, but for the rectification claim, may well have been brought in the District Court. No doubt the parties and those advising them are also cognisant of this, the commerciality of proceeding to a trial and the likely costs of doing so and will consider alternative means of achieving a resolution of the issues between them.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] In the statement of claim indorsed on the writ of summons filed on 7 March 2023.

[2] Orders of Registrar Nelson made on 15 August 2024.

[3] Orders of Registrar Fatharly made on 15 November 2024.

[4] Unpublished reasons delivered to the parties on 15 August 2024 (Reasons) [149].

[26] Minute [28(4)]; Asset Sale Agreement cl 3.1.

[32] Minute [32], which cross refers to [11(4)].

[33] Minute [33] - [36], [38], [44(1)].

[38] Minute [16.2], [17], [20], [21], [23], [24], [27].

[44] Referring to Cliffs Robe River Iron Associates v Dravo Pty Ltd [1988] WAR 322, 328 - 330; Mighty River International Ltd v Mineral Resources Ltd [2020] WASCA 44 [60]; Easy Stay Mining and Accommodation Pty Ltd v Mt Morgans WA Mining Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 86 [120].

[45] Poland v Hedley [2024] WASCA 74 [26] - [27].

[46] Referring to Roselle Enterprises Pty Ltd v Morris & Anor [2002] WASC 302 (Roselle Enterprises) [10] (Sanderson M), citing Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wiese (1990) 4 WAR 263 (Nationwide News), 266 ‑ 267 (Wallace J).

[48] Reasons [102], [106] - [107].

[49] West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Bond [2009] WASCA 127 (Bond) [40] (Buss JA, Wheeler & Owen JJA agreeing). See also Bunnings Group Ltd v CHEP Australia Ltd [2011] NSWCA 342; 82 NSWLR 420 (Bunnings Group) [124]; Tallott v City of Stirling [No 2] [2015] WASC 483 (Tallot [No 2]) [14] ‑ [16] (Chaney J).

[50] Fleming's The Law of Torts (11th ed, 2024) (Fleming's Law of Torts) [4.80].

[51] See Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] UKHL 19; [2002] 2 AC 883 (Kuwait Airways) 1084 [41] - [42].

[53] Penfold Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 45; (1946) 74 CLR 204, 219 (Latham CJ), 229 (Dixon J).

[54] Tallott [No 2] [14] (Chaney J).

[55] Kuwait Airways [42]. See also Tallott [No 2] [15], citing Bruen v Roe [1714] EngR 424; (1665) 82 ER 1095; Burrows v The Ship 'Merlion' [2024] FCA 220 [126] in which Derrington J refers to the separate tort of detinue for which a demand for the return of goods or chattels and a wrongful refusal to comply with the demand are essential elements.

[56] Brybay Pty Ltd (in liq) v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2002] WASC 309 [25] (McLure J), citing Halsbury's Laws of Australia, Vol 19, [315-645].

[57] Roselle Enterprises [10] (Sanderson M).

[58] Nationwide News 266 ‑ 267 (Wallace J).

[61] Reasons [135], [141] - [142].

[65] Bond [40] (Buss JA, Wheeler & Owen JJA agreeing). See also Bunnings Group [124]; Tallot [No 2] [14] ‑ [16] (Chaney J).

[66] Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398 [60], and the authorities referred to.

[67] English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47 [55] - [56] (Murphy & Vaughan JJA), [163] (Mitchell JA agreeing).

[68] Vantage Systems Pty Ltd v Priolo Corporation Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 21 (Vantage v Priolo) [164] ‑ [165], [171] (Buss JA), [184] (Newnes JA agreeing). See also Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2016] HCA 47; (2016) 260 CLR 85 [103] - [104].

[69] Vantage v Priolo [173] - [181].

[70] See Vantage v Priolo [180] (Buss JA), [184] (Newnes JA agreeing).

Conversion is a common law action in tort which imposes strict liability for a wrongful interference with the right to possession of a chattel. A person may sue for conversion if they had either actual possession or an immediate legal right to possession of the chattel at the time of conversion. Proof of ownership is unnecessary. There must be an intentional dealing with the chattel and the dealing must impair the plaintiff's rights to or in respect of the chattel. It is unnecessary, however, to prove that the defendant intended to impair the plaintiff's rights. See, generally, Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliott [1946] HCA 46; (1946) 74 CLR 204, 229; Rendell v Associated Finance Pty Ltd [1957] VicRp 88; [1957] VR 604, 612 - 613; Brybay Pty Ltd (in liq) v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2002] WASC 309 [14] - [35].

GOLDEN MILE MILLING PTY LTD -v- LAKEWOOD MINING PTY LTD [2026] WASC 10 (20 January 2026)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (36 paragraphs)

Cases Cited (4)