BAJAJ - [2024] WASCA 149

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   BAJAJ [2024] WASCA 149
CORAM:   MITCHELL JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   22 NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   22 NOVEMBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   22 NOVEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CACV 53 of 2024
BETWEEN:   RAMESH BAJAJ
Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   SEAWARD J
Citation: RE MAGISTRATE OWEN-CONWAY; EX PARTE BAJAJ [2024] WASC 333
File Number            :   CIV 2004 of 2024

Catchwords:

Appeal - Practice and procedure - Application for leave to appeal - Application for stay of listing and programming orders in relation to compensation application made under Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) - Application for leave to appeal dismissed where appeal had no reasonable prospects of success - Application for stay of listing and programming orders dismissed

Appeal against dismissal of application for review order pursuant to s 36 of Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) - Where primary judge said to have misconstrued, misinterpreted or misapprehended submissions of appellant - Appeal dismissed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant

In person

Solicitors:

Appellant

In person

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

Bajaj v Magistrate Trevor Darge [2021] WASCA 218
NRW Contracting Pty Ltd v Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 107
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re Hogan; Ex parte Western Australian Newspapers Ltd [2009] WASCA 221; (2009) 41 WAR 288
Re Magistrate Owen-Conway; Ex parte Bajaj [2024] WASC 333

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Overview

This appeal came before the court on 22 November 2024 pursuant to a registrar's notice to attend dated 4 October 2024 to consider the appellant's application for leave to appeal and the appellant's application in an appeal dated 27 September 2024.
The appellant sought leave to appeal against orders made in the General Division by Seaward J on 11 September 2024 dismissing the appellant's application for a review order pursuant to s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) and his associated application for a stay in relation to certain orders made by the Magistrates Court on 31 July 2024. Her Honour provided written reasons for those orders: Re Magistrate Owen-Conway; Ex parte Bajaj.[1] The Magistrates Court orders the subject of the application for review relevantly provided for the listing and programming for trial of a compensation claim against the appellant. The appellant's application in an appeal dated 27 September 2024 was largely, but not exclusively, directed to seeking a stay of the Magistrates Court orders pending the hearing of the appeal.
[1] Re Magistrate Owen-Conway; Ex parte Bajaj [2024] WASC 333 (primary reasons).
After considering the appellant's written and oral submissions we refused leave to appeal. It followed that the appellant's application in an appeal dated 27 September 2024 had to be dismissed. We said that we would provide written reasons for our decision.…

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 BAJAJ

Details

AGLC: BAJAJ [2024] WASCA 149
Case: [2024] WASCA 149
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bajaj, the respondent sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for review order pursuant to section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). The matter originated from a compensation application made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA). The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misapprehended submissions of the appellant.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of submissions made by the appellant and whether the primary judge had correctly applied the law in dismissing the application for review. The appellant argued that the primary judge had erred in the interpretation of the submissions, which led to an incorrect decision. The court had to consider the merits of the appeal and whether there were reasonable prospects of success for the appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success as the primary judge had not misconstrued, misinterpreted, or misapprehended the submissions of the appellant. The court found that the primary judge's decision was well-reasoned and based on a correct application of the law. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the appeal against the dismissal of the application for review order was also dismissed. The court further dismissed the application for a stay of the listing and programming orders in relation to the compensation application.

Orders