Damian Clothier KC, Matthew Doyle and Jonathan Hohl appeared for the applicant, instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth.
In summary, this case concerned disputes arising under a Contract Mining Agreement (CMA) between the respondents (who operate a power station) and the applicant (who provides mining services for the mine which powers the respondents’ power station).
The disputes of this case centred on (1) the party’s rights and obligations pursuant to two contract variations for additional hired fleets, (2) calculation of an end-of-contract overburden reconciliation, and (3) the entitlements of the applicant to be paid for deliveries of coal not within required quality specifications.
On the first issue, the Court held that the applicant’s interpretation of the CMA was correct, entitling it to payment at the agreed rate for excess waste removal. On the second issue, the Court – upon resolving technical disputes in favour of the applicant – determined that the overburden reconciliation was to be calculated in a way that largely favoured the applicant’s methodology. On the third issue, the respondents’ claims failed because its sampling regime breached contractual standards and its ‘ash analyser’ was not properly maintained, preventing reliance on laboratory results. The Court will hear further submissions as to final orders and cost.
The judgment can be read by clicking here
