A -v- CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSIONER [No 2] [2014] WASCA 33

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASCA 33
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	10/02/2014
Case No:	CACV:74/2013	Heard:	23 DECEMBER 2013
Coram:	MARTIN CJ	Delivered:	23/12/13
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	A CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSIONER CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Judgments and orders Stay Where stay order would be of no effect Stay for the purpose of special leave Administrative law Excess of jurisdiction Injunctive relief
Legislation:	Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 84, s 85, s 87, s 93, s 151, s 152(4)(c), s 152(4)(d)
Case References:	X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : A -v- CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSIONER [No 2] [2014] WASCA 33 CORAM : MARTIN CJ HEARD : 23 DECEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 23 DECEMBER 2013 PUBLISHED : 10 FEBRUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 74 of 2013 BETWEEN : A

Appellant

AND

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSIONER

First Respondent

CORRUPTION AND CRIME COMMISSION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Second Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Intervener

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : BEECH J

Citation : RE ROGER MACKNAY QC; EX PARTE A [2013] WASC 243

File No : CIV 1940 of 2013

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Judgments and orders - Stay - Where stay order would be of no effect - Stay for the purpose of special leave

Administrative law - Excess of jurisdiction - Injunctive relief

Legislation:

Corruption and Crime Commission Act 2003 (WA), s 84, s 85, s 87, s 93, s 151, s 152(4)(c), s 152(4)(d)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms K A Vernon

First Respondent : Ms P E Cahill SC

Second Respondent : Ms P E Cahill SC

Intervener : Mr A J Sefton & Ms A B Preston-Samson

Solicitors:

Appellant : Lyn Zinenko Lawyers

First Respondent : Corruption and Crime Commission

Second Respondent : Corruption and Crime Commission

Intervener : State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

X7 v Australian Crime Commission [2013] HCA 29

MARTIN CJ

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 23 December 2013 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 On 18 December 2013 I published the reasons of the court for concluding, by a majority, that the appeal against the earlier decision of Beech J, refusing the appellant relief, should be dismissed. At the time, I heard argument with respect to the orders that should be made and, after hearing that argument, decided that there should be no orders made, and that the matter should, instead, be adjourned to today in order that further consideration should be given to whether orders should be made and, if so, whether there…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read A v Corruption and Crime Commissioner [No 2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] WASCA 33
Decision Date: 10 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by the first respondent against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal centred around an order made by the Supreme Court, which directed the first respondent to pay costs to the appellant. The legal dispute primarily revolved around the court's authority to grant the order and whether the order constituted an excess of jurisdiction. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to make an order for costs and, if so, whether such an order was an excess of jurisdiction. The court had to consider whether the stay order issued by the Supreme Court was effective and whether it was appropriate to grant a stay for the purpose of special leave to the High Court. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the injunctive relief provided by the Supreme Court was within its administrative law jurisdiction.

The court determined that the stay order issued by the Supreme Court would be ineffective if the costs order was not quashed. Therefore, the court concluded that it was appropriate to grant a stay for the purpose of special leave to the High Court. The court also found that the injunctive relief granted by the Supreme Court was within its administrative law jurisdiction and was not an excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the stay order remained in place pending the outcome of the special leave application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.