A -v- C [2015] WASCA 122

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 122
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:25/2014	Heard:	2 JUNE 2015
Coram:	NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	12/06/15
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appellant's case struck out
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	A C
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appellant's case struck out on basis none of the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success
Legislation:	Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), pt 5 r 32
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : A -v- C [2015] WASCA 122 CORAM : NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 2 JUNE 2015 DELIVERED : 12 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 25 of 2014 BETWEEN : A

Appellant

AND

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE MORONI

Citation : C and A [2014] FCWAM 27

File No : PTW 434 of 2011

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appellant's case struck out on basis none of the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success

Legislation:

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), pt 5 r 32

Result:

Appellant's case struck out

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr A R Godecke

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Griffiths & Godecke

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: This matter was listed for hearing on 2 June 2015 to consider whether any of the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospects of success. We struck out the appellant's case and made a springing order to the effect that unless an amended appellant's case, in compliance with the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Rules) were filed and served on or before 30 June 2015, the appeal should be struck out. We indicated that we would publish reasons. These are our reasons.

The primary decision the subject of the appeal

2 The appeal concerns certain orders made by Magistrate Moroni in relation to the property interests of the parties arising from the cessation of their de facto relationship. In essence, the magistrate found that the respondent to the appeal (the applicant in the proceedings below) should receive a payment equivalent to 17.5% of the value of a home unit registered in the appellant's name in a Perth suburb. The magistrate, in effect, made orders that the appellant pay the respondent:

(a) the sum of $560 representing one half of the fees paid to the single expert witness in the case; and

(b) the sum of $89,250 as and by way of an order in lieu of an order altering interests in the property, with the monies to be secured by a charge over the home unit.

3 The magistrate found that the home unit was worth $680,000.

Procedural background

4 The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A v C

Details

AGLC: A v C [2015] WASCA 122
Case: [2015] WASCA 122
Decision Date: 12 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of A v C involved an appellant who sought to appeal against a decision made by a lower court. The nature of the dispute was whether the appellant's grounds for appeal had any reasonable prospect of success. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of certain provisions of the law, and that this error had led to an unjust outcome. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the lower court's decision was correct and that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success and whether the appeal should be struck out on the basis that none of the grounds had any reasonable prospect of success. The court had to consider the merits of each ground of appeal and determine whether there was a reasonable possibility that the appeal would succeed. The court also had to consider whether striking out the appeal was an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment of the court, the majority held that none of the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success. The court found that the lower court's interpretation of the law was correct and that the appellant had not demonstrated any error on the part of the lower court. The court also found that striking out the appeal was an appropriate remedy in the circumstances, as the appeal was unlikely to succeed and would result in a waste of court resources. The court therefore ordered that the appellant's case be struck out.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appellant's case struck out

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.