Atkins v iiNet Pty Ltd

[2019] SASCFC 98

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Full Court: Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court)

ATKINS v IINET PTY LTD

[2019] SASCFC 98

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Stanley and The Honourable Justice Nicholson)

8 August 2019

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL

EQUITY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - UNCONSCIONABILITY, UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS AND OTHER FORMS OF EQUITABLE FRAUD

Application for permission to appeal against the decision of a Judge of this Court dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court.

The applicant, Paul Atkins, and his wife entered into a settlement agreement with the respondent, iiNet Pty Ltd at the conclusion of a mediation between the parties. The applicant subsequently sought to set aside the settlement agreement on the basis that he lacked capacity to enter into it. The Magistrates Court dismissed that application. That decision was affirmed in a judgment of a Judge of this Court, which the applicant now seeks permission to appeal.

Held, refusing permission to appeal:

1.  The application does not raise a question of general principle.

2.  The appeal does not allege any error in the reasoning of the Magistrate or the appeal Judge.

3.   The claim for denial of procedural fairness and insufficient Court assistance is not made out on the material provided by the applicant or on the face of the judgments.

ATKINS v IINET PTY LTD
[2019] SASCFC 98

Full Court:  Kourakis CJ, Stanley and Nicholson JJ

1. THE COURT:      This is an application entitled ‘Notice of Appeal Against Administrative Decision’ but is, in substance, an application for permission to appeal against the decision of a Judge of this Court dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court.  In the interests of expedition and finality, the application has been listed for hearing and determination of this Full Court.

2. Mr Atkins and his wife brought separate proceedings in the Magistrates Court against iiNet Pty Ltd (iiNet).  On 27 March 2018 the matters were referred for mediation.  The mediation was held on 14 May 2018 and the actions were settled on the basis that the proceedings would be dismissed on iiNet paying $300 to each of Mr and Mrs Atkins.  The Magistrate’s reasons record that the terms of settlement were noted on the Court file. 

3. At 7.31 pm on the same day Mr Atkins emailed Mr Moffatt stating ‘as agreed please find below Mrs Regina Atkins account number for both amounts’.  On 18 May 2018 iiNet paid those amounts and informed Mr Atkins of the payment at 12.18 pm.  At 1.04 pm on that same day Mr Atkins emailed Mr Moffatt asking whether he could change his mind and alleging that iiNet had withheld important information. 

4. Mrs Atkins discontinued her proceedings on 18 May 2018.  However, on 24 May 2018, Mr Atkins filed an interlocutory application seeking to strike out or set aside the settlement agreement.  The application was opposed by iiNet. 

5. The Magistrate rejected Mr Atkins’ claim that he suffered from disabilities which rendered the settlement non est factum.   The Magistrate also rejected Mr Atkins’ claims that iiNet and the mediator engaged in conduct which vitiated the settlement. 

6. The Magistrate dismissed Mr Atkins’ interlocutory application.  Her Honour then entertained an oral application for summary judgment on the settlement agreement recorded on the file and dismissed Mr Atkins’ action in accordance with the terms of the settlement.

7. On appeal, a Judge of this Court came to the same conclusion and affirmed the Magistrate’s decision.[1]

   [1]    Atkins v iiNet Pty Ltd [2019] SASC 83.

8. This application does not raise a question of general principle.   Mr Atkins’ appeal does not allege any error in the reasoning of the Magistrate or the appeal Judge.  He alleges instead a denial of procedural fairness and a failure of the Court to provide him with greater assistance.  Neither claim is made out on the material provided by Mr Atkins or on the face of the judgments.

9. We refuse permission to appeal.