SINO IRON PTY LTD -v- MINERALOGY PTY LTD [No 13] [2025] WASC 168 (8 May 2025)

1. Before addressing the objections, it is convenient to first describe the Goodwin Statement in brief terms.
2. The Goodwin Statement is comprehensive. The statement is 454 paragraphs in length, running to 145 pages, separated into seven sections (with each section having identified sub-parts), with a glossary and five annexures.
3. The seven sections to the Goodwin Statement are:

(a) Section 1 - Background;

(b) Section 2 - Mine Planning and the Mine Pit Extension;

(c) Section 3 - Waste Rock;

(d) Section 4 - Tailings;

(e) Section 5 - Fortescue River Road;

(f) Section 6 - Suspension; and

(g) Section 7 - Summary of Quantities and Estimates.

1. As appears in the Goodwin Statement, Mr Goodwin proposes to give factual evidence providing an overview of the Sino Iron Project and its operations, as well as the existing mine pit, the existing waste rock dumps (WRDs), and existing tailings storage facility (TSF). The Goodwin Statement also addresses the mine planning process, the constraints which are said to be in effect or operative at present or in the future, and the proposals contained in the 2023 MCPs for the extension of the mine pit, the WRDs, and the TSF. The relocation of the Fortescue River Road is addressed in section 5 of the Goodwin Statement.
2. Mr Goodwin, in section 6 of the Goodwin Statement, proposes to give evidence as to the ways in which the constraints on the mine pit and mining, the waste rock storage and the tailing storage would force the slowing and suspension of the operation of the Sino Iron Project, the impacts therefrom, and the challenges involved in resuming the operation if it became suspended.
3. The final section of the Goodwin Statement provides a summary of the quantities and estimates of ore, waste rock and tailing storage.
4. To give a sense of the detail of the Goodwin Statement, Section 2 of the statement, which is headed 'Mine Planning and the Mine Pit Extension', covers the following matters:

1. Mr Goodwin has set out his employment history, qualifications and experience on the Sino Iron Project at [28] - [43] of the Goodwin Statement. Given the objections pressed in relation to the statement, it is necessary to address this evidence in some detail. Mr Goodwin's employment history, qualifications and experience may be summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Goodwin holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the New South Wales Institute of Technology and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of New England.

(b) Mr Goodwin states he has more than 40 years' experience in the Australian resources sector across a range of commodities, including iron ore, gold, copper, mineral sands, lateritic nickel/cobalt and coal.

(c) Mr Goodwin states that he has acquired a detailed understanding across the mining industry as a result of his involvement in many major mining projects in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia in a variety of roles, including as Project Engineer, Maintenance Engineer and Asset Manager. Further, in his previous roles at Newcrest Mining and, before that, at BHP Iron Ore, he states that he often had responsibility for the construction and maintenance of a mine's major processing plant and equipment, such as waste storage facilities (including TSFs), delivery and extraction systems, water distribution networks, leaching plants, power stations and conveying systems.

(d) Mr Goodwin commenced employment with CPMM in March 2009 and held various roles within the business until December 2023. He states he was recruited to set up all of the asset structures for the Project and was given responsibility for mine maintenance, which was a role primarily focused on the maintenance of the Project's mobile equipment, such as dump trucks and shovels.

(e) Mr Goodwin states that, in July 2010, he became the General Manager Assets and then in late 2013, he commenced working for the Finance Department, and his asset structuring role was extended. Thereafter, he states he continued to have responsibility for, amongst other things, managing asset structures at the Project until he left his full time Deputy Chief Operating Officer role in December 2023.

(f) Additionally, Mr Goodwin states that, in about May 2016, he became responsible for the ongoing design and construction of the existing TSF, and for any expansion of the TSF, for the Project. When he first became responsible for the TSF, he worked mostly on site for three or four months to supervise its construction. In this role he states that he liaised with Golder Associates who were the external consultants then engaged by CPMM to design the TSF.

(g) Mr Goodwin states he also liaised with other Project teams such as the Mining department (who were building the TSF) and the Processing department (who operated it). His responsibilities in this role, which continued until late 2023, included reviewing technical reports and design documents, preparing financial documents, and orchestrating the building machinery, all necessary, he states, for the construction of the TSF.

(h) Further, in 2016 and 2017, Mr Goodwin states he was involved in the preparation of the 2017 MCPs, including the incorporation of design work undertaken by Golder into the 2017 MCPs, to the extent that the 2017 MCPs contemplated the proposed expansion of the TSF.

(i) In February 2019, Mr Goodwin was appointed Deputy Chief Operating Officer, with responsibility to the Chief Operating Officer, for overseeing and managing the Mining department. At that time, Mr Goodwin also became responsible for the Health and Safety department, as well as the Environment department. His role and responsibilities in relation to the construction of the TSF did not change. A major change resulting from this appointment was that Mr Goodwin moved to working on site full-time.

(j) Then, in early 2020, Mr Xiaoming Hu took over responsibility for overseeing and managing the Mining department, but Mr Goodwin retained his other roles until the end of December 2023, as noted above.

1. Annexures A, B and C to the Goodwin Statement are maps and diagrams. Annexures D and E are marked-up versions of the statements which Mr Goodwin made for the purposes of the 2017 MCP Proceeding.

C. Objection: duplicative summaries of evidence

1. The Goodwin Statement has been drafted in a manner which involves a degree of repetition, through the use of summaries, cross-referencing, and what I would describe as navigational aids to assist the reader of the statement. The apparent intention of this style of drafting is to assist the reader to navigate the voluminous statement and render the material more digestible.
2. By way of example, I refer to [3], [17], [78], [138], [144], [250] and [407] of the Goodwin Statement:

[3] As set out in the letter, the 2023 MCPs were proposed as an interim solution to the urgent need to extend the operating areas of the Project. They are 'interim' in the sense that, as explained further in this statement, they would not enable the full exercise by Sino and Korean of their combined rights to mine and process up to 2 billion tonnes (Bt) (dry)1 of magnetite ore. Rather, they would enable the Project to continue operating for longer than it will be able to operate under the existing approved proposals under the State Agreement. That is primarily because, as explained further below, being confined to areas over which Sino and Korean currently have rights of access and use, they do not provide sufficient capacity for storage of waste rock generated by the extraction of 2 Bt (dry) of magnetite ore.

[17] The Mine Pit Extension is needed so that Sino and Korean are able to continue to extract ore within their 2 Bt (dry) entitlement under the Project agreements with Mineralogy. The area within which mining can occur is currently constrained by the existing approved proposals under the State Agreement. Without approval of the Mine Pit Extension, it is estimated that Sino and Korean would be able to extract no more than approximately 549 Mt (dry) of their 2 Bt (dry) entitlement. This estimate ignores other constraints that may further limit extraction and processing. For example, the rate at which mining operations can be conducted in the constrained space at the bottom of the mine pit is reduced, which may further limit the maximum amount of ore that can be economically extracted. Insufficient tailings storage capacity may also further limit the maximum amount that could be physically extracted and processed. The Mine Pit Extension is addressed further in Section 2 of this witness statement.

[78] As summarised at paragraph 17 above, the Mine Pit Extension is needed so that Sino and Korean are able to continue to extract ore within their 2 Bt (dry) entitlement under the Project agreements with Mineralogy....

[138] As noted in paragraph 78 above, without approval of the Mine Pit Extension, it is estimated that Sino and Korean would only be able to extract no more than approximately 549 Mt (dry) of their 2 Bt (dry) entitlement.

[144] As summarised at paragraph 18 above, the WRD Extension is needed so that Sino and Korean can store waste rock generated by the continued extraction of ore from the mine pit. The vast majority of waste rock is stored in WRDs and in the embankments of the TSF. The areas within which WRDs and the TSF can be developed are currently constrained by the existing approved proposals under the State Agreement. The extraction of 2 Bt (dry) of ore is estimated to generate approximately 2.43 Bt (dry) of waste rock. The basis of this estimate is explained further from paragraph 185 below. Without the WRD Extension (and the TSF Extension), it is estimated that Sino and Korean would only be able to store approximately 584 Mt (dry) of waste rock. The basis of this estimate is explained further from paragraph 192 below.

[250] As I discuss below, however, the cost and technical difficulty of upstream lifting the combined TSF dams to either RL 81m (or RL 91m) is likely to be very high. It is not known whether this is feasible.

[407] In this section, I address:

(a) the ways in which the constraints on mining, waste rock storage, and tailings storage addressed in Sections 2, 3 and 4 above force the slowing and suspension of the operation of the Project;

(b) the impacts of the forced slowing and suspension of the operation of the Project; and

(c) the challenges involved in resuming the operation of the Project if it becomes suspended, and in ramping up mining and production after it resumes.

1. There are many more examples. The interaction between [17], [78] and [138] of the Goodwin Statement is a particularly useful example to illustrate the degree of repetition in the statement, through the device of cross-referencing.
2. In my view, the manner in which the Goodwin Statement has been drafted is apt to cause some confusion during the trial process, given the repetition which appears throughout, and may add unduly to the cross-examination process. The manner of its preparation or drafting may also cause confusion at the conclusion of the trial as to precisely which parts of Mr Goodwin's statement embody his evidence on the particular subjects in question, and which parts are intended only to be navigational aids or mere summaries.
3. This confusion must be avoided, or at least minimised. While cross-referencing in a witness statement is permissible, great care should be taken where material evidence is duplicated within a statement and should be avoided where possible.
4. For these reasons, the first defendant sought a ruling that the evidence in these particular paragraphs should be admitted only for the limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement, and should thus stand or fall with the substantive content which is being summarised or identified. Such a ruling is appropriate, given my observations in the preceding paragraphs.
5. I will accordingly rule that the evidence in the Goodwin Statement which expressly purports to be a summary of other parts of the statement should be admitted only for the limited purpose of summarising that evidence, and should stand or fall with the substantive content which is being summarised or identified.
6. This ruling applies to at least the following paragraphs of the Goodwin Statement:

(a) Section 1 - [3], [17] (first sentence), [18] (first and third sentences), [19] (first sentence), [21], [22] and [52];

(b) Section 2 - [118] and [144];

(c) Section 3 - [168], [185] and [191];

(d) Section 4 - [250], [342], [353] (fourth sentence), [394], [395], [397], [398] and [399];

(e) Section 6 - [407]; and

(f) Section 7 - [437] - [454] (being the whole of section 7).

1. Mineralogy contends that Mr Goodwin lacks the requisite authority within the CITIC Group to speak to that group's corporate intentions and raises a number of objections to his evidence on this basis.[4]
2. This particular objection was developed, initially, by reference to rulings made in the 2017 MCP Proceeding by Kenneth Martin J. My attention was drawn to his Honour's reasons at [2115] to [2119], among other paragraphs.[5] In part, his Honour there identified the limits on Mr Goodwin's evidence in the 2017 MCP Proceeding going to the asserted 'reasonable expectations' said to be held by the CITIC plaintiffs in that proceeding. His Honour held that Mr Goodwin's role within the overall CITIC Group hierarchy did not permit him to provide relevant or admissible evidence to assist the Court on that corporate expectation issue.
3. Senior counsel for Mineralogy also noted the role played by lawyers in drafting the 2023 MCPs, to emphasise the apparently limited role played by Mr Goodwin in that regard, notwithstanding the extensive parts of his witness statement which speak to those new proposals. I will return to that issue below.
4. Senior counsel for the plaintiffs submitted the Court should reject the objection based on authority limits, submitting that Mr Goodwin held an appropriately senior position within the CITIC Group at the time the relevant cause of action crystalised (being the cause of action the plaintiffs sue upon). The cause of action accrued on delivery of the 2023 MCPs, on 18 August 2023, in the submission of the plaintiffs, or at least within a reasonable period thereafter.[6] Mr Goodwin was the Deputy Chief Operating Officer at that time, although he was in the less senior role of Senior Advisor to the Chairman and CEO when he made the Goodwin Statement (which was filed in November 2024).
5. I reject the objection based on Mr Goodwin's asserted lack of authority.
6. It is evident that Mr Goodwin held an appropriately senior position at the time the 2023 MCPs were being prepared and when those MCPs were delivered by the plaintiffs to the first defendant in August 2023. I consider it is fairly open to conclude that Mr Goodwin, as a person in the role of Deputy Chief Operating Officer for the particular project, is authorised to give evidence on behalf of the entities or group which employed him.
7. By way of example, Mr Goodwin has the requisite authority to be able to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs, and CPMM, in relation to the conduct and actions of those entities at the time he held the role of Deputy Chief Operating Officer (see for example [192] and [412] of the Goodwin Statement) and as to future impacts to the Sino Iron Project from a slowing or suspension of the project (see for example [421] of the Goodwin Statement). In the latter respect, Mr Goodwin can give that evidence having regard to his former role and the knowledge acquired in that role. Mr Goodwin is able to authoritatively speak to the deliberations of the plaintiffs and the considerations to which the plaintiffs have had regard in preparing the 2023 MCPs.
8. Further, there do not appear to be any instances in the Goodwin Statement in which Mr Goodwin purports to give evidence of the corporate state of mind for the period after he ceased to be the Deputy Chief Operating Officer. This last point can be contrasted with the issues arising in the 2017 MCP Proceeding where matters concerning high level corporate expectations fell for consideration by the Court. Such issues do not arise in the instant case.
9. The foregoing in effect addresses the objections based on the submission that Mr Goodwin had a limited role in the preparation of the 2017 MCPs and in the preparation of the 2023 MCPs. Those are matters which fundamentally go to weight, rather than admissibility, in my view.

E. Objection: asserted lack of expertise and insufficient reasoning

1. A number of the first defendant's objections were directed to the asserted lack of expertise on Mr Goodwin's part to give evidence on particular matters. I have outlined earlier in these reasons a summary of the personal employment history, qualifications and experience which Mr Goodwin professes to have in respect of the Sino Iron Project, and need not repeat that.
2. Senior counsel for Mineralogy noted that the objections which had originally been filed in respect of certain matters of evidence involving expertise had been withdrawn by Mineralogy, given Mr Goodwin's apparent expertise in those areas.[7] For example, I refer to [83] and [84] of the Goodwin Statement as to 'moisture factors' or 'moisture content', and more significantly, the matters the Goodwin Statement concerning the TSFs such as in [251], [255] and [256]. Objections to this evidence are not pressed by Mineralogy.
3. However, the balance of the objections in this category were maintained on the basis that Mr Goodwin was purporting to express opinions outside his expertise, and not within his specialised knowledge, training and experience. The submission was advanced, quite properly, in a manner which expressly disavowed any disrespect towards Mr Goodwin. The submission was in essence that there are proper limits on the ability of a witness to express opinion evidence, which must be adhered to, and which control the admissibility of that evidence. It was also contended that Mr Goodwin had not set out his reasoning for certain opinions expressed by him within the statement.
4. Mineralogy maintained that Mr Goodwin did not have the requisite knowledge, training or experience in the areas of mine pit design or waste rock design, or in respect of calculations concerning waste rock and tailings capacity.[8] Mineralogy also submitted that Mr Goodwin did not have expertise in designing TSFs, although accepted he had expertise in building such facilities.[9]
5. Some examples should be noted.
6. At [179] to [183] of the Goodwin Statement, Mr Goodwin explains how the 'in situ density' and the 'estimated future loose waste density' is calculated, as part of his explanation of waste rock management issues on the Sino Iron Project. Mineralogy objected to [183], but not [179] to [182], on the basis that the estimates of waste rock management are matter Mr Goodwin has no relevant expertise or experience to be able to speak. The relevant parts of Mr Goodwin's proposed evidence are as follows:

[178] Waste rock density is measured in tonnes per cubic metre (t/m3). The density value can be used to convert the mass of waste rock (tonnes) into volume (cubic metres (m3)) and vice versa.

[179] Waste rock density is estimated in two contexts:

(a) 'in situ' density is the number of tonnes of waste rock per cubic metre (t/m3) in the location in which it is situated before it has been extracted (i.e. undisturbed in the mine pit); and

(b) 'loose' density is the number of tonnes of waste rock per cubic metre (t/m3) after it has been extracted and deposited in another location.

[180] As referred to in paragraph 110(a) above, the Resource Block Model assigns a value for the in situ density of the waste rock in each block. The densities assigned by the Resource Block Model are dry values for both waste rock and ore, and are used by modelling and scheduling software (as referred to in paragraph 110 above) to produce material movement schedules which project an estimated mass (tonnage) and volume (m3) for the ore and waste rock for each year. The in situ density for a given period can be projected by dividing the estimated cumulative mass (tonnage) by the estimated cumulative volume for that period.

[181] The existing loose waste density is determined by measuring the volume (m3) filled by a known number of tonnes once it has been deposited in a new location.

[182] Future loose waste density can be projected by using a 'swell factor', which estimates (by way of a back-calculation, relying on previous observed loose waste density values) the additional space needed to store the waste rock once it has been extracted from its original location and deposited in a new location.

[183] The estimated future loose waste density is calculated as follows:

(a) Based on the in situ densities within the Resource Block Model, the average in situ density of the waste rock that has been extracted from the mine pit is estimated to be 2.77 t/m3 (dry).

(b) CPM uses a swell factor of 1.30 for planning purposes. CPM previously used a swell factor of 1.33. The figure of 1.33 was based on an analysis undertaken in January 2022 of, among other things, actual waste dump spatial volumes and actual tonnes of material delivered to the waste dumps at the Project. This was recorded in a memorandum [CPM.675.068.0020] (exhibit 1944 at the trial of the 2017 MCP Proceeding). The data was reviewed by CPM again in early 2023 and the swell factor was adjusted to 1.30 for planning purposes. The updated swell factor was referred to, for example, in an email of 28 April 2023 [CPM.680.057.4141].

(c) Dividing the in situ density of 2.77 t/m3 (dry) by the swell factor of 1.30 gives an estimated loose waste density of 2.13 t/m3 (dry). Dividing this by the moisture factor of 0.95 gives an estimated loose waste density of 2.24 t/m3 (wet).

1. As noted in Attachment A, I have accepted the first defendant's submission concerning the expression of opinion as to the 'in situ density' for waste rock of 2.77 t/m3 in [183(a)], which has implications for the evidence at [183(b)] and [183(c)]. The basis upon which Mr Goodwin expresses an opinion as to the 'in situ density' is wholly unclear and beyond his expertise. The evidence appears to be drawn from the Resource Block Model and certain calculations undertaken as explained at [180]. At the hearing on 7 May 2025, I note senior counsel for the plaintiffs indicated that the plaintiffs may seek to adduce further evidence in this regard.
2. The plaintiffs invited the Court to reject the broad challenges to Mr Goodwin's expertise, having regard to a holistic assessment of Mr Goodwin's employment history, qualifications and experience as outline within his statement.
3. Additionally, in response to a number of the objections, Mr Kirkwood SC submitted that the relevant proposed evidence was in essence nothing more than a statement of fact, not an expression of opinion, in any event. That is, many of the statements are factual matters within the personal knowledge of Mr Goodwin by reason of his experience and responsibilities on the Sino Iron Project. Where I have formed this view, I have recorded that in Attachment A to the reasons.
4. In respect of several paragraphs of the Goodwin Statement, Mr Goodwin gives evidence which is wholly based on a supporting document of which he was not the author:

(a) For example, at [138], [139] and [140(b)] of the Goodwin Statement,[10] Mr Goodwin proposes to give evidence as to the estimate of ore which can be extracted without the extension of the mine pit, being no more than 549 Mt (dry). That figure is drawn from a CPMM memorandum. Mr Goodwin has expertise to explain how this is calculated, but evidence of the estimate itself comes solely from the document, which is sought to be tendered as a business record. The tender of that document will need to be addressed separately.

(b) Another example appears at [141], concerning the stock exchange announcement. Again, the relevant evidence is found in the document and will need to be the subject of consideration when the tender of the document is considered.

(c) Finally, I refer to [221] of the Goodwin Statement, Mr Goodwin proposes to give evidence of the estimate of tailing storage within the existing TSF. The estimate of 352 Mt (dry) is drawn form a report prepared by the consultants Golder. Evidence of that estimate by Mr Goodwin is secondary and hearsay. The admission of the Golder report will need to be addressed separately.

1. Ultimately, Mr Kirkwood SC submitted it was necessary to examine each passage in the statement which was the subject of objection, in order to properly assess the nature of the evidence sought be led and the quality of the objection.
2. Mr Kirkwood SC submitted that Mr Goodwin's expertise should also be evaluated by reference to those portions of his statement where Mr Goodwin sets out his understanding of matters in respect of mining, WRDs and TSFs, which underpin the opinions he expresses. It was submitted that these further paragraphs 'vividly demonstrate ... that Mr Goodwin is well able to give the evidence that he does in this witness statement'.[11]
3. As to this last submission, I do not accept that I should use the recitation of Mr Goodwin's evidence elsewhere in his statement to bolster a conclusion as to his expertise and his ability to give that evidence. That strikes me as little more than a 'bootstraps' argument.
4. The relevant principles which should be applied in addressing the first defendant's objections as to Mr Goodwin's expertise are summarised below. The orthodox requirements at common law are expressed in leading authorities such as Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar[12] and, in this State, Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd[13] and McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 3].[14]
5. The position is well explained in the majority reasons in Dasreef:[15]

A failure to demonstrate that an opinion expressed by a witness is based on the witness's specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience is a matter that goes to the admissibility of the evidence, not its weight.

1. Further, Heydon J explained in Dasreef under the heading 'The statement of reasoning rule at common law':[16]

[91] The authorities. At common law there is no doubt that an expert opinion is inadmissible unless the expert states in chief the reasoning by which the expert conclusion arrived at flows from the facts proved or assumed by the expert so as to reveal that the opinion is based on the expert's expertise. The court does not have to be satisfied that the reasoning is correct: "the giving of correct expert evidence cannot be treated as a qualification necessary for giving expert evidence." But the reasoning must be stated. The opposing party is not to be left to find out about the expert's thinking for the first time in cross-examination.

[92] Sir Owen Dixon, speaking extrajudicially, said: "courts cannot be expected to act upon opinions the basis of which is unexplained." In R v Jenkins; Ex parte Morrison Fullagar J quoted that statement with approval, and added that expert scientific witnesses should be asked to "explain the basis of theory or experience" on which their conclusions rest. On appeal Rich and Dixon JJ approved what Fullagar J had said. The witness must explain the basis of theory or experience because the court is not limited to examining the conclusion or the expertise of the expert witness: it must look to the "substance of the opinion expressed." Since choosing between conflicting experts depends in part on "impressiveness and cogency of reasoning" their "processes of reasoning" must be identified. In short, as the Victorian Court of Appeal (Winneke P, Charles and Chernov JJA) said in R v Juric:

"[T]he jury must be able to evaluate the strength of [expert opinion] evidence by reference to its factual or scientific basis. Whether it can properly do so is a matter initially for the judge in determining whether that evidence is admissible. ... [T]he admissibility of [expert opinion] evidence must depend upon the judge's satisfaction that the jury can, on the basis of material put before them, properly and reasonably evaluate the differing opinions expressed and make a responsible determination as to which of them is to be preferred."

[93] Function of the statement of reasoning rule. The rule protects cross-examiners by enabling them to go straight to the heart of any difference between the parties without the delay of preliminary reconnoitring. It also aids the court in a non-jury trial, because at the end of the trial it is the duty of the court to give reasons for its conclusions. And it aids jurors, because at the end of the trial they have the duty of assessing the rational force of expert evidence. If there is not some exposition of the expert's reasoning it will be impossible for the court to compose a judgment stating, and for the jurors to assemble, reasons for accepting or rejecting or qualifying the expert's conclusion... (footnotes omitted)

1. The threads of the above principles were drawn together in this Court by Beech J (as his Honour then was) in Coal Hub Pty Ltd v NSL Consolidated Ltd [No 2],[17] as follows, citing Pownall, Dasreef and McKay:

(1) an expert opinion must be in a field of specialised knowledge in which, or in the relevant part of which, the witness demonstrates that by reason of specialised training, study or experience, he or she has become an expert;

(2) the expert must state the facts or assumptions on which their opinion is based;

(3) the facts on which the opinion is based must be proved by admissible evidence; and

(4) an expert must sufficiently reveal their reasoning, based upon their expertise, from assumptions to conclusions or inferences.

[56] Expert evidence must explain how the expert's special knowledge applies to the facts and matters assumed to produce the opinion. The process of reasoning that leads to the expert's conclusions must be stated or revealed in a way that enables those conclusions to be tested and a judgment made about the reliability of them. This must be done in chief, and not left for the cross‑examiner to discover.

1. In my view, Mr Goodwin's qualifications, employment history and experience were assessed in too narrow a fashion by Mineralogy in developing its objections. It must be recognised that Mr Goodwin holds a Mechanical Engineering degree, and has more than four decades of experience in the resources sector in Australia, across a range of commodities including iron ore. Mr Goodwin has held roles as a Project Engineer, a Maintenance Engineer, and an Asset Manager. His experience extends to the construction and maintenance of major processing plant and equipment including waste storage facilities and TSFs.
2. Insofar as the Sino Iron Project, Mr Goodwin has been engaged on the project since its inception. He has held various roles on the project over the past 16 years, commencing in 2009. At least initially, these roles had a focus on asset structures, then developed into finance roles, but since 2016 has involved responsibility for the TSFs. Mr Goodwin states:

[36] In about May 2016, I also became responsible for the ongoing design and construction of the existing TSF, and for any expansion of the TSF, for the Project.

[37] When I first became responsible for the TSF, I worked mostly on site for three or four months to supervise its construction. In this role I liaised with Golder Associates (Golder), who were the external consultants then engaged by CPM to design the TSF. I also liaised with other Project teams such as the Mining department (who were building the TSF) and the Processing department (who operated it). My responsibilities in this role, which continued until late 2023, included reviewing technical reports and design documents, preparing financial documents, and orchestrating the building machinery, all necessary for the construction of the TSF.

[38] In 2016 and 2017, I was involved in the preparation of the 2017 MCPs, including the incorporation of design work undertaken by Golder into the 2017 MCPs, to the extent that the 2017 MCPs contemplated the proposed expansion of the TSF. The 2017 Sino Iron MCP is at [CPM.639.275.8106] and the 2017 Korean Steel MCP is at [CPM.639.275.8158].

1. While Mr Goodwin took the role of Deputy Chief Operating Officer in February 2019, his role and responsibilities for the construction of the TSF did not alter after this point, he says, and, indeed, he moved to work on the site on a full-time basis at this point.
2. There will be occasions, in a mining context, where a witness with no engineering background or qualifications may be asserted to have acquired appropriate expertise in technical matters by reason of their experience on mining projects and in mining companies. For example, persons with solely accounting or business qualifications might be asserted to acquire expertise of technical matters through their long-term experience in working on mining projects. Each case would need to be closely considered.
3. This is a not such a circumstance, though, because Mr Goodwin possesses an engineering qualification and has, on the face of his statement at least, acquired detailed experience in engineering and technical roles. With that formal qualification, and that experience, Mr Goodwin explains in his statement that he has experience across a number of functional components of mining projects. I am inclined to more readily find that an engineer with decades of experience in mining projects, including with construction and design experience on waste storage facilities, TSFs and associated infrastructure, has a sufficient degree of expertise to opine as to not only those matters in which the witness has had primary direct and demonstrated experience, but in respect of matters with which the witness has also had experience, albeit to a lesser extent, concerning allied matters and functional components on such mining projects. I do not consider these aspects can be dissected into separate parts. At that further level of analysis, the issue becomes one of weight, not admissibility.
4. In the present context, I am satisfied Mr Goodwin is able to express the opinions, the ultimate cogency of which will need to be assessed at the conclusion of his evidence, on the matters in Sections 2 to 6 of his statement, addressing matters concerning mine pit planning, waste rock storage, tailings storage and design, the alignment of the road in question (although his evidence is limited in this regard), and the impacts of slowing and suspicion of the operations. The opinions are based, or are at least substantially based, on Mr Goodwin's specialised knowledge of these matters acquired through his qualifications, experience and lengthy employment history on mining projects and on this project in particular. Put another way, there is an appropriate connection demonstrated between the opinions expressed by Mr Goodwin on the matters in question and Mr Goodwin's specialised knowledge based on his training and experience.[18]
5. Of course, it remains necessary for a witness to explain the substance of his opinion and to expose his reasoning. I need not be presently satisfied whether the reasoning is correct, but what is important is that the reasoning be stated in a manner which avoids the possibility that the witnesses' thinking is revealed only for the first time under cross-examination.[19]
6. I have observed already that the Goodwin Statement is comprehensive. Where I have not been satisfied there was sufficient reasoning included, I have noted that in the rulings in Attachment A. However, on the whole, I am satisfied that the reasoning process has been delineated by Mr Goodwin in the statement. The statement must also be read holistically, without focusing upon or parsing individual paragraphs in a manner which ignores other portions. As I have noted, there is some overlap in the statement. I made that point above in these reasons by way of criticism, but it also highlights the need for the Court, when assessing the reasoning of Mr Goodwin, to review the statement in the holistic manner which senior counsel for the plaintiffs urged upon the Court.
7. Three examples of the reasoning of Mr Goodwin will suffice.
8. First, Mr Goodwin addressed the mine pit extension in Section 2 of the Goodwin Statement. At [139], Mr Goodwin refers to an estimate prepared by CPMM as to the ore which may be extracted from the mine pit without approval of the extension.[20] At [140], Mr Goodwin proposes to testify as the matters not covered by the estimate, as follows:

[140] As noted earlier, this estimate ignores other constraints that may further limit extraction and processing. For example, the rate at which mining operations can be conducted in the constrained space at the bottom of the mine pit is reduced, which may further limit the maximum amount of ore that can be economically extracted. Insufficient tailings storage capacity may also further limit the maximum amount that could be physically extracted and processed. These constraints are explained in more detail below: ...

1. Mr Goodwin then details various constraints which may limit extraction and processing, including a reduction in the rate at which ore can be fed into the concentrator and the consequent rate of production of concentrate, said to be impacted by a range of 9 specific factors which are identified, as well as the limits on the storage of tailings.
2. Second, Mr Goodwin addresses the key design parameters of the TSF Extension in Part F.1 of the Goodwin Statement at [352] to [365], and addresses the specific design parameters and considerations underlying the conceptual design for the TSF Extension in Part F.2 at [366] to [387].
3. Over the course of the first 13 paragraphs, commencing with [352], Mr Goodwin first explains the conceptual design for the TSF Extension, the manner of construction using a combination of downstream and upstream lifts and use of the centre-line method (which are all earlier explained in Part C.6 of the statement), the costs considerations involved, regulatory issues, the risks of failure, and technical considerations involved.
4. Mr Goodwin then explains, over the next 21 paragraphs, the specific design parameters underlying the conceptual design, by reference to the large surface area of the facility which is needed, the proximity to the mine which is required, and the physical geology of the land which must enable access of the construction of embankment walls.
5. Third, in Section 3 of the Goodwin Statement, Mr Goodwin proposes to give evidence as to the calculation of waste rock storage under the existing approved proposals and under the 2023 MCPs. At [192] to [201], Mr Goodwin explains the process for undertaking those calculations in respect of the existing approved proposals. Then, at [202] to [216], Mr Goodwin explains the process for undertaking the calculations under the 2023 MCPs. Although in at least one respect I am not satisfied Mr Goodwin has expertise to give evidence as to one integer of the calculations, I accept he has expertise otherwise and has exposed his reasoning process in a manner which alerts counsel for Mineralogy to that reasoning, and will permit cross-examination without delaying counsel for the first defendant with a process of 'preliminary reconnoitring'.[21]
6. The above examples illustrate the manner in which the Goodwin Statement expressly contains a path of reasoning for the statements of opinion therein expressed. I have noted my specific rulings in Attachment A.

1. There was an overarching objection to [160] of the Goodwin Statement. This objection overlaps with the strike-out application I heard on 24 April 2025, which challenged [23] of the plaintiffs' statement of claim. I dismissed that application.[22]
2. The impugned paragraph of the Goodwin Statement read as follows:

[160] When excavating the mine pit, CPM extracts the following:

(a) ore, which is defined as economically profitable rock which, at CPM, contains 17% or more MagFe (see for example the 2019 Life of Mine Plan [CPM.629.077.0001 at .0018 and .0021]); and

(b) large quantities of waste, consisting of:

(i) topsoil from the surface of the land;

(ii) over-burden which is waste that must be removed to uncover the ore body; and

(iii) waste rock which has less than 17% MagFe, or rock containing more than 17% MagFe but is classified as waste because it is not economic to mine and process.

1. The objection is, in effect, that this evidence is not relevant to the pleaded case having regard to the particulars to [23] of the statement of claim. I will address this issue more fully in my reasons concerning the strike-out application, but for present purposes it is sufficient to observe that I do not accept the first defendant's submission. I say that because the particulars which are sub-joined to [23] of the statement of claim do not purport to provide an exhaustive definition of 'waste rock'.
2. Paragraph 23 of the statement of claim states:

[23] The Sino Iron Project generates significant volumes of waste, in the form of tailings and waste rock, which are required to be moved and managed.

Particulars

Tailings are a waste product arising from the processing of magnetite ore to produce magnetite concentrate through magnetic separation. Waste rock includes overburden and rock which does not meet the definition of Magnetite Ore, being ore containing 17% or more MagFe. The Plaintiffs estimate that:

(i) of the 2 Bt of magnetite ore which Sino Iron and Korean Steel are contractually entitled to extract, approximately two thirds will be deposited as tailings (i.e. 1.33 Bt) and approximately one third will ultimately comprise magnetite concentrate (i.e. 0.67 Bt); and

(ii) approximately 2.43 Bt (dry) of waste rock will need to be extracted in order to mine the 2 Bt of magnetite ore from the mine pit. (underlining added)

1. The particulars outlined above indicate that waste rock includes overburden and rock which does not meet the definition of 'Magnetite Ore' under the contractual instruments, being ore containing 17% or more MagFe.
2. I addressed issues concerning the MagFe content in my reasons published on 22 April 2025, in relation to the pleading amendment application brought by Mineralogy: Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 10].[23] I observed as follows:

[58] The statement of Mr Goodwin was served on 23 November 2024. Mineralogy contends there is a disconformity between his proposed evidence and the pleading at SOC [23]. Indeed, the catalyst for the current amendments is said by Mineralogy to emerge from the evidence contained in that statement.

[59] The evidence to be adduced from Mr Goodwin is that CPM (as the manager and operator) has extracted material containing more than 17% magnetite iron (or MagFe), but which has been classified as waste because it was not economic to mine and process.

[60] Mr Goodwin's statement distinguishes between, on the one hand, ore which contains 'economically profitable rock' with more than 17% MagFe and, on the other hand, the large quantities of waste which includes the material with more than the requisite MagFe content but which is uneconomic to mine and process.

[61] The requisite MagFe content of the ore is an issue addressed in the contractual instruments.

1. In determining the amendment application, I did not accept the submission advanced by Mineralogy that allegations as to whether rock containing more than 17% MagFe has been treated as waste by the plaintiffs arise on the pleadings as they stand. I found that the classification of rock, whether wrongful or otherwise, and whether described as being uneconomic to mine or whether it is classified as 'Utilised Low Grade Material', is not an issue which arises on the pleadings.[24]
2. The foregoing conclusions do not preclude Mr Goodwin giving evidence to the effect that the large quantities of waste rock generated by the Sino Iron Project include waste rock which has less than 17% MagFe, or waste rock containing more than 17% MagFe but which is classified as waste because it is not economic to mine and process.
3. This aspect of the evidence is not beyond the pleading because the particulars are not stated to be exhaustive. In any event, this evidence is rather subsidiary to the issues arising in the present case, as I have explained, and the question whether the plaintiffs are contractually prohibited from classifying rock containing 17% or more MagFe as waste rock does not directly arise in the trial before me.

1. Several objections were taken to statements in the Goodwin Statement which were expressed in a passive manner, leaving some doubt, it was submitted, whether evidence was sought to be given of the state of mind of an unidentified person.
2. For example, at [303], it is said that 'at the time CPM considered that upstream lifting was not a viable option' and, at [304], it is said that the 'view that upstream lifting was not a viable option was based' on various matters. Objection was taken that this was 'unattributed evidence of the state of mind of others'. Other examples are found at [308], [336], [341], [350] and [353].
3. I accept that a written statement of evidence should preferably be expressed in a more direct, personal manner, which renders it clear the witness is speaking as to their own view or their own deliberations or contemplations. Where that is not the case, the witness should clear state so, in order to permit the admissibility of evidence as to the views expressed by another person to be considered.
4. In the present circumstances, I have adopted a pragmatic approach to these passages given that Mr Goodwin occupied a senior position within the CITIC group at the relevant times. As I have observed above, as the Deputy Chief Operating Officer, Mr Goodwin is able to authoritatively speak to the deliberations of the plaintiffs and the considerations to which the plaintiffs have had regard in preparing the 2023 MCPs. That is the manner in which I have construed the passages which are the subject of objection. Whether that is the case is a matter which can properly be explored by senior counsel in cross-examination when Mr Goodwin testified. For present purposes, the passages are not inadmissible on the basis contended.

1. The foregoing reasons explain why I made the rulings in respect of Mineralogy's objections to the Goodwin Statement, which rulings are detailed in the schedule which is Attachment A to these reasons.

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

Contents of letter neutrally and accurately described.

Evidence provides context for the evidence that follows.

Insufficient reasoning and factual basis identified (Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 at [42], [91]) (Insufficient reasoning).

Conclusion explicitly based on the evidence that follows, as is also plain from the context.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

As the conclusions follow from the identified evidence that follows, the submission that the evidence is "an impermissible summary" and a submission is without foundation.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

First sentence, "which were... magnetite ore extraction rights"

Matters deposed to are factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

Impermissible summary of conduct and outcome of 2017 MCP Proceedings.

Evidence provides context for the evidence that follows.

Objections overruled other than as to second sentence of [7] and first sentence of [8] which are both mere submissions and summaries of Court reasons and orders. Not admitted for testimonial effect.

Matters deposed to are factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

Both statements in [10] are factual assertions the witness is capable of giving evidence as to. Objections overruled.

First sentence, "Sino's and Korean's existing rights of access and use"

Disputed that this is a submission; it is a description of what the map depicts.

Objection upheld. The portion objected to contains submissions as to existing contractual rights of access and use.

Second sentence, ", and under the General Arrangement Map Deed"

Disputed that this is a submission; it is a description of what the map depicts.

Objection upheld. The portion objected to is in effect a submission.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objections overruled. To the extent to which this portion of the evidence is a summary, the evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objections overruled. To the extent to which this portion of the evidence is a summary, the evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Alternatively, annexures be received as aide memoire only and not evidence of truth of the assertions in them.

Relevance is apparent from context. Further, Annexures are relied on as evidence of information available to Mineralogy when it received the 2023 MCPs: Further Amended Reply, [11(b)]; Response dated 31/7/24 to request for particulars, [2.2].

Objections overruled. Prior statements at least relevant to demonstrate information available to Mineralogy when 2023 MCPs were delivered.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion is based on the evidence given in the balance of the statement, as is apparent from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Third and fourth sentences are summaries of evidence later identified. See [138] and [139 below. Fifth sentence (as to constraints ignored by the estimate) are admissible as per [138] and [139] below.

Third sentence and part of final sentence (", further reducing this remaining ore figure")

Source of opinion not disclosed. Conclusion; submission.

As to third sentence: basis of conclusion and calculation expressly identified.

As to fragment of fourth sentence: basis for conclusion apparent from context.

Disputed that what is expressed in either case is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Fourth sentence is a statement of fact, and admissible. Evidence of 549 Mt derived from CPMM document and is addressed at [138] and [139] below.

Evidence provides context for the evidence that follows.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Statement of fact which Mr Goodwin can give based on his personal knowledge.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection as to third sentence upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Disputed that the sentence is speculative or conclusory. These are factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

Objections overruled. Statement of fact based on personal knowledge.

Hearsay (evidence is said to be based on CPM January 2022 memorandum).

The document is admissible as a business record, and the witness may refer to it.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Substantially the same evidence was admitted in the trial of the 2017 MCP Proceeding.

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

The evidence in these paragraphs that Sino and Korean would only be able to extract no more than 549 MT of their entitlement is derived solely from the CPMM document identified in [139]. Mr Goodwin cannot give testimonial evidence of that estimate and evidence is inadmissible to that extent.

Admission of the CPMM memorandum falls to be considered separately. Document should be separately assessed for tender on basis it is a business record, or not.

Balance of [138] and [139] may stand as statements of fact as to estimation process and currency.

Objection overruled. Mr Goodwin did not prepare the estimation document but can testify as to matters excluded based on his expertise and experience.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is plain from the context.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Evidence of estimate of 549 Mt dealt with at [138] above, which is derived from CPMM memorandum.

Mr Goodwin can testify based on expertise and experience as to the two thirds estimate, but veracity of the 549 Mt figure remains derived from the CPMM document.

Second sentence is summary of other evidence. This evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

The document is admissible as a business record, and the witness may refer to it.

Reasons for conclusion expressed in the document itself. Factual matters are described; the submission that the paragraph is argumentative and a submission is disputed.

Objection upheld. Mr Goodwin's commentary or recitation of the stock exchange announcement is hearsay and conclusionary. Document should be separately assessed for tender on basis it is a business record, or not.

Conclusion based on the evidence given in that section of the statement, as is explicitly stated.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Impermissible summary and unnecessary conclusion. Objection upheld.

Evidence falls with upheld objections to Section 3, Part D below.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated. Basis of calculations is expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

This paragraph contains a summary of evidence elsewhere identified. Objection thus upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion is based on the evidence given in the balance of the statement, as is apparent from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative is disputed.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

The document is admissible as a business record, and the witness may refer to it.

Basis for conclusion and calculations are expressly identified.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

Evidence as to 523 Mt of waste rock is derived from CPMM Monthly Report for June 2023, which falls to be admitted (or not) as business record, to be separately considered. Third sentence is otherwise a calculation based on two figures, the admissibility of which is elsewhere addressed. Not otherwise objectionable.

The document is admissible as a business record, and the witness may refer to it.

Evidence given in this paragraph is of what Golder advised, and so in any event is not hearsay.

Objection upheld and evidence in [165] should be admitted on limited basis of establishing the statements were made or the information in question was prepared, but not for testimonial purposes.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection overruled. Mr Goodwin is expressing statements of fact in [167], based on his former position as Deputy COO.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

The documents are admissible as business records, and the witness may refer to them. (Further, document CPM.675.068.0020 was ruled admissible in the 2017 MCP Proceeding: Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 12] [2022] WASC 474, [21]-[37]).

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

The basis for the evidence as to the in situ density for the waste rock of 2.77 t/m3 is wholly unclear (in [183(a)].

The evidence in [183(b)] and [183(c)] are calculations based on the matters in [183(a)] and may stand, but this evidence is of no assistance or is incomprehensible without the figure in [183(a)].

The statement as to the in situ density of the extracted waste rock is an expression of opinion which is beyond Mr Goodwin's expertise and is in any event not sufficiently explained through a process of reasoning.

Accordingly, [183(a)] is inadmissible and objections in this respect upheld.

Conclusion based on the evidence that follows, as is explicitly stated.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Per 185, first sentence (no independent relevance without first sentence).

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

The documents are business records and the witness may refer to them.

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Witness is giving limited evidence in this paragraph as to information derived from four documents.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusions based on the evidence that follows, as is apparent from context and [193].

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

As to [192] to [200], Mr Goodwin has necessary expertise to explain waste rock storage capacity and how this is calculated.

However, to the extent to which the derivation of these figures is based on the average loose waste rock density of 2.13 t/m3, that figure is itself derived from the evidence at [183] above (and appears to rest solely upon that evidence). See ruling above at [183] in this regard.

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Conclusions based on the evidence that follows, as is apparent from context and [206].

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

As to [205] to [215], Mr Goodwin has necessary expertise to explain waste rock storage capacity under the 2023 MCPs and how this is calculated.

However, to the extent to which the derivation of these figures is based on the average loose waste rock density of 2.13 t/m3, that figure is itself derived from the evidence at [183] above (and appears to rest solely upon that evidence). See ruling above at [183] in this regard.

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Evidence falls with upheld objections to this section.

Merely a summary of the evidence given earlier in statement, which assists the reader.

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

This paragraph is a summary only. Stands or falls with admissibility of paragraphs which contain the substantive evidence.

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled, but the 'two thirds' capacity opinion rests on the veracity of the calculations which is subject to rulings above as to [192] to [200] (waste rock storage under existing approvals) and [202] to [215] (as to waste rock storage under 2023 MCPs).

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

This evidence is a summary and falls to be assessed with other paragraphs.

The documents are business records and the witness may refer to them.

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Mr Goodwin has expertise and experience to testify as to tailings storage capacity.

However, the figure of 352 Mt of tailings storage is derived from the material in the Golder report. The testimonial effect of first sentence of [221] is subject to admission (or not) of Golder report. Objections upheld to this extent.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Paragraph contains statements of fact based on personal knowledge and records calculations that flow therefrom.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Opinion based on material in first statement, which is sufficiently explained therein.

Objection based on speculative opinion without adequate explanation. Objection raised by senior counsel at hearing on 22 April 2025.

Objections overruled. Statement reflects earlier findings of the Court in 2017 MCP Proceeding.

Conclusion based on the balance of the evidence, as is apparent from context.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

To the extent that an opinion is expressed, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Evidence is of: the content of Golder's conceptual design; what that design would require; and the estimated timeframe for its construction. These are all matters that are addressed in [304] (to which this evidence refers) and Part E.1 (to which [304] refers).

That evidence either concerns the contents of the Golder design, which is within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39], or opinion that is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43]. In either case the evidence is not hearsay.

Objections overruled. Evidence is statement of fact based on witness' knowledge, or is otherwise a conclusion derived from Golder report.

Conclusions based on the evidence and reasoning in Part E.1 as is explicitly identified.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Given the above, the evidence is neither conclusory nor a submission.

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin has expertise and experience to give opinion as to tight timeframe.

Contents of purported discussion do not provide a basis to establish the truth of the asserted constraints or estimates.

Relevant to (at least) the allegations that the 2023 MCPs are needed to enable the Project to continue operating (e.g. [49], [77] of the statement of claim), and in [40(a)(iv)] of the further amended defence.

Evidence of the content of the discussion with DMIRS does not in itself purport to go to the truth of the asserted constraints or estimates. Rather, the truth is established by the evidence explicitly given in the witness statement.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The basis and reasoning for the conclusions is explicitly identified.

These paragraphs admissible as to events at the meeting, including by reference to documents which were presented or explained at the meeting.

Such evidence is not testimonial though as to substance of matters, which will fall to be assessed by reference to admission of the documents identified in [239], [240] and [241], to be separately assessed.

As to "necessary": conclusion; inadmissible opinion; insufficient reasoning; submission.

As to the part "because... until June 2023": argumentative; conclusion; submission.

To the extent that the "necessity" of the investigations referred to is an opinion, it is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43]. The basis for it is contained in the balance of the evidence, as is explicitly identified.

The fact that Mineralogy did not submit the PoW until June 2023 is a matter of public record. The evidence that this is the reason the necessary investigations were delayed is a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection confined to 'because Mineralogy did not submit' portion of [247]. Objection overruled and reflects finding of the Court in 2017 MCP Proceeding.

Basis for conclusions and calculations are expressly identified, including the other parts of the evidence relied on.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Given the above, the evidence is neither conclusory nor a submission.

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin has necessary expertise and experience to testify as to construction of tailings extension.

An identification for the reader of what is explained in a later part of the statement.

Basis for conclusion is expressly identified in that evidence.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

The calculation of the loose waste density is explained in [183] of the witness statement.

Objections upheld as to loose waste density of waste rock which is not sufficiently explained

Disputed that what is expressed is an opinion. Witness is describing what Golder required, a factual matter within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

Given the above, there is no basis for the submission that the evidence is hearsay, and the submission is disputed.

Objection overruled. Mr Goodwin can give factual evidence as to the requirements imposed by Golder.

Conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others. Witness is not an officer of CPM.

If not excluded altogether, limit to evidence of CPM state of mind only.

The time referred to is 2017-2019, when the raise was being considered. At that time, the witness was responsible for the ongoing design and construction of the TSF and for any expansion of the TSF ([36]) and in February 2019 the witness became the Deputy COO: [39]. The witness is therefore capable of giving the relevant evidence concerning CPM's state of mind.

As to the evidence beginning "as due to the size of the Stage 2 TSF...", the matters deposed to are:

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The proposed limitation is therefore inappropriate.

Objection overruled. Mr Goodwin can give evidence as to deliberations of CPMM at time he was the Deputy COO, these being matters within his authority.

Conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others. Witness is not an officer of CPM.

If not excluded altogether, limit to evidence of CPM state of mind only.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above.

The sentence does not purport to do anything other than describe the view held and the reasons for it. The proposed limitation is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others. Witness is not an officer of CPM.

If not excluded altogether, limit to evidence of CPM state of mind only.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above.

As to the evidence beginning "This is because...", the matters deposed to are:

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The proposed limitation is therefore inappropriate.

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin has authority to give evidence as to reasoning of CPMM at relevant time, given his prior position as Deputy COO. Mr Goodwin otherwise has necessary expertise and experience to give the evidence to explain the reasons themselves (at (a) and (b) of [308]).

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Objections upheld, evidence falls to be assessed by reference to the admission of the Golder report as a business record.

"Expectations" of Man Feng not relevant to any fact in issue.

Documents admissible as business records and the witness may refer to them.

Matters identified by Man Feng expressly adopted by the witness at [325], meaning the relevance objection is not to the point.

Conclusion based on the matters explicitly identified in the paragraphs.

Objection upheld. Mr Goodwin's evidence as to the contents of Mr Feng's document are hearsay and summaries of the document. The document should speak for itself, and Mr Goodwin can give the evidence at [325] that he agreed with the assessment, but the material at [319] to [324] should not be received for any testimonial effect.

Evidence falls with upheld objections to paras 319-324.

Conclusion explicitly based on the matters set out in the paragraphs above.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

As noted in relation to [319]-[324] above, the first sentence of [325] is a complete answer to the objection taken to [319]-[324] on the basis of relevance. As such, to that extent the contention that the first sentence of [325] "falls with upheld objections to paras 319-324" is circular.

The Court notes this objection was not pressed by Mineralogy, with clarification given by senior counsel at ts 1912 (22 April 2025).

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Evidence provides context for the evidence that follows.

Objection upheld. Mr Goodwin's evidence as to the contents of Mr Wang's document are hearsay and summaries of the document. The document should speak for itself, and Mr Goodwin can give the evidence at [328] with his view, but the material at [327] should not be received for any testimonial effect.

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Evidence provides context for the evidence that follows.

Objection upheld. Mr Goodwin's evidence as to the contents of the Golder document are hearsay and simply summaries or narrations of the document. The document should speak for itself.

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Objection upheld. This material should not be received for its testimonial effect.

Conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others. Witness is not an officer of CPM.

Conclusion explicitly based on immediately preceding evidence.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above. Further, the witness's continued involvement in these matters at the relevant time is apparent from the evidence he gives in his statement. Further, at the time (in or about August 2023), the witness was an officer of CPM, the Deputy Chief Operating Officer: [39], [41].

Objection overruled. Mr Goodwin can give evidence as to deliberations of CPMM at time he was the Deputy COO, these being matters within his authority. Not a conclusion.

Conclusion based on the preceding evidence, as is apparent from the context.

Objections overruled. Evidence is based on matters elsewhere asserted in statement. Sufficient reasoning provided.

Conclusion based on the preceding evidence, as is apparent from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin can assert this conclusion having regard to his earlier evidence.

Document is admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Objection upheld. Mr Goodwin's evidence as to the contents of the funding application document are hearsay and simply summaries or narrations of the document. The document should speak for itself.

Document is admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Conclusion explicitly based on the preceding evidence, as is also apparent from the context.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above. Further, the witness's continued involvement in these matters at the relevant time is apparent from the evidence he gives in his statement. Further, at the time (November 2023), the witness was an officer of CPM, the Deputy Chief Operating Officer: [39], [41].

Submission that the evidence is argumentative and conclusory, and a submission, is disputed.

Objection overruled. Mr Goodwin can give evidence as to deliberations of CPMM at time he was the Deputy COO, these being matters within his authority.

Conclusions based on inadmissible hearsay subject to objections above.

Conclusion explicitly based on the preceding evidence, as is also apparent from the context.

Document is admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusions based on inadmissible hearsay subject to objections above.

Vague - identity of proposer, timing and substance of proposal unclear.

Conclusion explicitly based on the preceding evidence, as is also apparent from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Document is admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Submission that the evidence is argumentative and conclusory, and a submission, is disputed.

Objections overruled. Evidence is statement of fact within his personal knowledge, but in any event Mr Goodwin has expertise and experience to express opinions.

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Evidence provides context for the evidence that follows.

Objections upheld - document should speak for itself.

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Mineralogy accepts first sentence is admissible, but challenges balance. Balance of sentence not admitted for testimonial purpose.

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

Statements in [348] are hearsay and inadmissible, but see [349] below.

Vague, conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others.

Conclusion explicitly based on the preceding evidence, as is also apparent from the context.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above. Further, the witness's continued involvement in these matters at the relevant time is apparent from the evidence he gives in his statement. Further, at the time (July 2023), the witness was an officer of CPM, the Deputy Chief Operating Officer: [39], [41].

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin can testify as to such matters and express agreement with Mr Feng's assessment. Within his expertise. Mr Goodwin was Deputy COO at time and had appropriate authority.

The evidence is of factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39].

Submission that the evidence is argumentative and conclusory, and a submission, is disputed.

Objections overruled. Statement of fact based on personal knowledge of Mr Goodwin.

Vague, conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others.

Conclusion explicitly based on the preceding evidence, as is also apparent from the context.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above. Further, the witness's continued involvement in these matters at the relevant time is apparent from the evidence he gives in his statement. Further, at the time (July to November 2023), the witness was an officer of CPM, the Deputy Chief Operating Officer: [39], [41].

Objections overruled to extent expectation as expressed is that of Mr Goodwin, as Deputy COO.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Evidence provides context for the evidence that follows.

Objections upheld. Documents should speak for themselves.

Conclusion based on the preceding evidence, as is apparent from the context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin has expertise and experience to express opinions.

The evidence is of factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]. Those matters are neutrally described. There is no basis for the submission that the evidence is argumentative and conclusory, and a submission.

Statements of fact from personal knowledge. Objections overruled.

Vague, conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above. Further, the witness's continued involvement in these matters at the relevant time is apparent from the evidence he gives in his statement. Further, at the time (August 2023), the witness was an officer of CPM, the Deputy Chief Operating Officer: [39], [41].

Objections overruled to extent expectation or deliberation as expressed is that of Mr Goodwin, as Deputy COO.

Objection overruled. Statement of fact based on personal knowledge or is opinion within expertise, and evidence further explained at [361].

Conclusion based on matters explicitly identified in the paragraph.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Conclusion based on matters explicitly identified in this and subsequent paragraphs. See also [340(c)].

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection overruled. Statement of fact based on personal knowledge or is opinion within expertise.

Relies upon admissibility of other objectionable evidence.

Conclusion based on matters explicitly identified in this and preceding paragraphs.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection overruled. Statement of fact based on personal knowledge or is opinion within expertise.

Document admissible as a business record and the witness may refer to it.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objections upheld. Evidence falls to be assessed by reference to the admission of Golder Memorandum as a business record or not.

Conclusion based on previous evidence, as is apparent from context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin can give evidence of opinions based on expertise and experience. Reasoning sufficient.

Conclusion based on previous evidence, as is apparent from context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Mr Goodwin can give evidence of opinions based on expertise and experience. Reasoning sufficient.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Statements of fact based on personal knowledge. To extent to which involves expression of opinion, Mr Goodwin has appropriate expertise and experience. Objections overruled.

Conclusion based on previous evidence, as is apparent from context.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Statements of fact based on personal knowledge. To extent to which involves expression of opinion, Mr Goodwin has appropriate expertise and experience. Objections overruled.

Impermissible summary; relies upon admissibility of other contested evidence.

Conclusion explicitly based on previous evidence, as is also apparent from context.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

As the conclusions follow from the previous evidence, the submission that the evidence is "an impermissible summary" and a submission is without foundation.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Impermissible summary; relies upon admissibility of other contested evidence.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Conclusion based on [400]-[404], as is apparent from context.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; and / or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

As the conclusions follow from the previous evidence, the submission that the evidence is argumentative and conclusory, and a submission, is without foundation.

Statements of fact based on personal knowledge. To extent to which involves expression of opinion, Mr Goodwin has appropriate expertise and experience. Objections overruled.

Identifies what is addressed in this section of the witness statement.

The submission that the evidence is argumentative, conclusory and a submission is disputed.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

Impermissible summary; relies upon admissibility of other contested evidence.

Conclusion explicitly based on previous evidence, as is also apparent from context.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

As the conclusions follow from the previous evidence, the submission that the evidence is "an impermissible summary" and a submission is disputed.

To extent to which summarises other evidence, it should stand or fall on the basis of other evidence.

Otherwise, evidence is statements of fact based on personal knowledge. To extent to which involves expression of opinion, Mr Goodwin has appropriate expertise and experience. Objections overruled.

Impermissible summary; relies upon admissibility of other contested evidence.

Conclusion. Unattributed evidence of state of mind of others. Witness is not an officer of CPM.

Conclusion based on matters identified in the paragraph, as is apparent from context.

The witness can give evidence of the relevant state of mind by reason of the matters set out in relation to [303] above. Further, the witness's involvement in these matters at the relevant time is apparent from the evidence he gives in his statement, including the email chains referred to in [412] and [413]. Further, at the time the 2023 MCPs were provided to Mineralogy, the witness was an officer of CPM, the Deputy Chief Operating Officer: [39], [41].

Conclusion based on matters explicitly identified in the paragraph.

As the conclusions follow from the previous evidence, the submission that the evidence is argumentative and conclusory, and a submission, is without foundation.

Conclusion based on matters explicitly identified, including evidence given earlier in statement.

Opinion is admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

The submission that the evidence is "an impermissible summary" and a submission is disputed.

Objections overruled. Statement of fact or acceptable expression of opinion within expertise.

At the time the 2023 MCPs were provided to Mineralogy, the witness was an officer of CPM, the Deputy Chief Operating Officer: [39], [41].

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39];

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43]; and / or

c) based on matters of which judicial notice may be taken (eg, that slowing and suspension of a mining project's operations will lead to a reduction in that project's workforce).

Evidence is not speculative, and the basis for the evidence here is clearly articulated.

Disputed that the evidence is vague or insufficiently reasoned.

a) of factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; and / or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

Those matters are neutrally described. There is no basis for the submission that the evidence is argumentative and conclusory, and a submission.

Impermissible summary; relies upon admissibility of other contested evidence.

Conclusion explicitly based on previous evidence, as is also apparent from context.

a) factual matters within the personal knowledge of the witness by reason of experience and responsibilities on the Project described in [36]-[39]; or

b) opinions that are admissible based on the witness' specialised knowledge, training and experience as referred to in [28]-[42], as stated in [43].

As the conclusions follow from the previous evidence, the submission that the evidence is "an impermissible summary" and a submission is without foundation.

Objection upheld in part only with evidence admitted for limited purpose of summarising other parts of the statement.

[1] I will generally use the definitions employed in previous interlocutory decisions of the Court in this action.

[2] Goodwin Statement [42] and ts 1925 (22 April 2025).

[3] Email from Ms Robinson to the Court sent 21 April 2025 at 10:18pm, which identified around 70 objections which were not pressed.

[5] Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 15] [2023] WASC 56. See also [299], [1044], [1914], [1915] and [1926] in this regard.

[12] Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; (2011) 243 CLR 588 (Dasreef). It is to be noted that the Court was concerned with the requirements of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in particular, but their Honours also addressed the common law requirements.

[13] Pownall v Conlan Management Pty Ltd [1995] WASC 117; (1992) 12 WAR 370 (Pownall).

[14] McKay v Commissioner of Main Roads [No 3] [2010] WASC 232 [3] - [7] (Beech J) (McKay).

[15] Dasreef [42] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

[16] Dasreef [91] - [93] (Heydon J).

[17] Coal Hub Pty Ltd v NSL Consolidated Ltd [No 2] [2016] WASC 257 [55] - [56] (Beech J) (Coal Hub).

[18] Dasreef [41] (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).

[19] Dasreef [91] (Heydon J); Coal Hub [55] (Beech J).

[20] I have addressed this evidence elsewhere in these reasons.

[22] Orders made on 24 April 2025 (Folio 234).

[23] Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 10] [2025] WASC 130.

[24] Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 10] [98].