Mount Lyell Mining v. Roxon Corporation Oy [1994] FCA 856

JUDGMENT No, smo wt,

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES REGISTRY NG 503 of 1994

GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN:

MOUNT LYELL MINING Applicant

AND:

ROXON CORPORATION OY

Respondent SY CORAM: SACKVILLE J. PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 1994 R

HIS HONOUR: I note that the undertaking as to damages has been proffered and the orders will be made on the basis of that

undertaking.

RECORDED 3 NOT TRANSCRIBED

In the reasons for judgment that I have just handed down, I indicated at pages 12 to 13 that it was not clear to me from the material in Mr Carr-Gregg's affidavit that evidence had been adduced of the representations that were alleged to have been made by or on behalf of the first respondent that were said to induce the applicant to have purchased the machine that is the subject of these proceedings. I indicated that I would invite Mr Pembroke to deal with this matter at 2.15 pm today. He has

now done so. He has drawn my attention to the letter of 25 March

1987 which is annexure A to the affidavit of Mr Carr-Gregg.

He has also drawn my attention specifically to the letter of 6 May 1987 from Select Engineering Services Pty Limited to Mount Lyell which had been tendered by Mr Pembroke and was exhibit A. He has also tendered two further documents which are referred to in the particulars in the amended statement of claim. These are letters respectively of 15 August 1986 and 15 July 1987. While these are letters from Select Engineering Services Pty Limited to Mount Lyell, they do include documentation that appears to emanate from Finland and to involve representations made by or

on behalf of the first respondent.

In those circumstances, the query that I raised at pages 12 to 13 of the reasons for judgment I consider to have been satisfied for the purposes of this ex parte application. Accordingly there is no need for me to alter the orders that I made yesterday, 10