Arnold v Royal & Sun Alliance Workers Compensation (SA) Pty Ltd and Anor No. Scciv-02-1354

[2003] SASC 80

ARNOLD  v ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE WORKERS COMPENSATION (SA) PTY LTD AND ANOR
[2003] SASC 80

Full Court:  Doyle CJ, Nyland and Bleby JJ (ex tempore)

1. DOYLE CJ, NYLAND & BLEBY JJ:    This is an application to the Full Court for leave to appeal against a decision of a Judge of this Court.

2. Mr Arnold appealed to this Court against a decision of the Magistrates Court on questions of interest and costs, following the entry of a judgment in Mr Arnold’s favour in the civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. The Magistrate took the view, after hearing submissions, that there was good reason for the purposes of s 34(1) of the Magistrates Court Act why an award of interest should not be made to Mr Arnold.  Without going into detail, the Magistrate relied on the fact that in other proceedings Mr Arnold had been found to be indebted to the defendant for an amount almost equal to the amount of his judgment.  On the question of costs, the Magistrate made a limited order for costs, declining to order any costs in respect of the period after the defendant had paid the amount for which the plaintiff obtained judgment.

3. On appeal to this Court, the Judge who heard the appeal took the view that no error by the Magistrate had been demonstrated.  The Judge made the point that in relation to each order there was a substantial element of discretion involved.

4. Leave to appeal is required by proviso (3) to s 50(1) of the Supreme Court Act.  The Judge refused to grant leave to appeal.

5. This Court has power to grant leave to appeal.  By r 94.03 of the Supreme Court Rules the application for leave to appeal is to be made in writing, and is to be considered privately by the Full Court.

6. The Full Court for those purposes comprised the Chief Justice, Nyland and Bleby JJ.  We have considered the reasons of the Judge and the written summary of argument submitted by counsel for Mr Arnold.

7. Our view is that this is not an appropriate case for the grant of leave to appeal.  The principles governing the exercise of the Magistrate’s discretion are well settled.  The only issue that arises is the application of those principles.  The amounts involved are relatively small.  The matter has been reviewed by a single judge.  There is no obvious error in his approach.  The arguments advanced by Mr Arnold in substance invite the Court to revisit, for itself, the exercise of the discretion and to do so afresh.  Our view is that no error has been demonstrated, and that we are merely being asked to re-exercise the discretions involved.

8. It has not been the practice of this Court to grant leave in such a case.  Leave is usually granted only if there is a point of principle, or an arguable error that readily appears, or if in some way the interests of justice call for a grant of leave.  None of those criteria are met in this case.

9. For those reasons the Court is unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused, and the Court orders accordingly.