JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: AB -v- BEER [2018] WASCA 12
CORAM: MURPHY JA
BEECH JA
HEARD: 22 DECEMBER 2017
DELIVERED : 12 FEBRUARY 2018
FILE NO/S: CACV 89 of 2017
BETWEEN: AB
Appellant
AND
INGO BEER
First RespondentINNER CITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
Second RespondentMOBILE COMMUNITY OUTREACH TEAM
Third RespondentMENTAL HEALTH TRIBUNAL
Fourth RespondentSTATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Fifth Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :CORBOY J
Citation :AB -v- BEER [2017] WASC 199
File No :GDA 9 of 2016, GDA 10 of 2016, GDA 1 of 2017, CIV 3024 of 2016
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application for extension of time - Application to join parties - Appellant's case not filed - Whether appeal should be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA)
Application for joinder of parties - No arguable basis for joinder of parties
Legislation:
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA)
Result:
Application to extend time, join parties and have parties give evidence dismissed
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant: In person
First Respondent : Ms C J Thatcher
Second Respondent : Ms C J Thatcher
Third Respondent : Ms C J Thatcher
Fourth Respondent : Ms C J Thatcher
Fifth Respondent : No appearance
Solicitors:
Appellant: In person
First Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Second Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Third Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Fourth Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Fifth Respondent : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
AB and Mental Health Tribunal [2016] WASAT 71
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This matter came to a hearing on 22 December 2017 by way of a registrar's notice to attend dated 5 December 2017 to consider the appellant's application dated 28 November 2017, and for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Rules).
The appellant's application dated 28 November 2017 seeks orders (amongst other things) for the joinder of a large number of persons and entities as respondents to the appeal, and to require those persons and entities to, in effect, give discovery on oath of 'all documents in their power and/or possession having anything to do with the … Appellant or any of his claims since 1966 to this day'.
The persons and entities sought to be joined include:
(1)QBE Insurance Group Ltd, its directors, chief executive officers and state managers since 1974;
(2)The Insurance Commission of Western Australia and its directors and senior officers since 1998;
(3)CSR Group Ltd and its subsidiaries since 1966;
(4)Clough Engineering and its predecessors and all its joint venture partners in the Robe River project since 1971;
(5)Transfield (WA) Pty Ltd and all its managing directors since 1974;
(6)The…
Continue reading AB v Beer
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- AB v Beer [2018] WASCA 12
- Case
- [2018] WASCA 12
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that AB's application to appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the complaints were not supported by any evidence and were speculative. The court found that AB had not demonstrated an arguable basis for joining the numerous respondents, as the allegations against them were not related to the primary decision of the tribunal. The court also noted that the discovery application was excessive and not warranted by the issues in the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and made orders that the costs of the appeal be paid by AB.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.