Barkla v Allianz Australia

[2015] WASCA 210

BARKLA -v- ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA [2015] WASCA 210

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 210
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	21/10/2015
Case No:	CACV:125/2015	Heard:	14 OCTOBER 2015
Coram:	NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	14/10/15
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to review decision of Court of Appeal Registrar dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GEOFF BARKLA ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for review of decision of Court of Appeal Registrar refusing to accept documents for filing Documents an abuse of process Application dismissed Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] HCASL 40 Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WASCA 192 Barkla v Justice David Wallace Newnes [2015] WASCA 120

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BARKLA -v- ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA [2015] WASCA 210 CORAM : NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 14 OCTOBER 2015 DELIVERED : 14 OCTOBER 2015 PUBLISHED : 21 OCTOBER 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 125 of 2015 BETWEEN : GEOFF BARKLA

Appellant

AND

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : STONE DCJ

File No : CIV 1719 of 2015

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for review of decision of Court of Appeal Registrar refusing to accept documents for filing - Documents an abuse of process - Application dismissed - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application to review decision of Court of Appeal Registrar dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mills Oakley Lawyers

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

Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] HCASL 40
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WASCA 192
Barkla v Justice David Wallace Newnes [2015] WASCA 120



1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 14 October 2015, we dismissed an application by the appellant for a review of a decision of the acting Court of Appeal Registrar to refuse, pursuant to r 10(1) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Court of Appeal Rules), to accept for filing two documents the appellant sought to file in the appeal. We said we would give reasons for our decision. These are the reasons.

2 The application came about in the following way. On 12 May 2015, the appellant commenced proceedings in the District Court by a generally indorsed writ of summons. He filed a statement of claim on 10 June 2012. The respondent applied to strike out the statement of claim and for summary judgment. On the hearing of that application, on 31 July 2015, Stone DCJ dismissed the appellant's action.

3 On 10 August 2015, the appellant filed an appeal notice in this court. Two days later, on 12 August 2015, the appellant sought to file two documents in the appeal. One document was headed 'Referral of legal issue to Court of Appeal' and the other was headed 'Notice to admit facts - pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Order 30(2)'.

4 The legal issue the appellant sought to refer to the Court of Appeal was as follows:

As the Written Laws of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 Schedule 2 Article 19(2) states the following 'Everyoneshall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information …' - (Legal Issue) - By what Written Laws provide that a Plaintiff is NOT permitted to seek and receive information from a Respondent in an Australian Court of Law? (original emphasis)

5 The 'notice to admit facts', in essence, sought admissions by the respondent of a right of the appellant, pursuant to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), to seek and receive information; as to the terms and effect of O 30 r 2(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); that certain dictionaries contain certain definitions; and that the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent asking two legal questions.

6 Both documents were rejected by the acting Court of Appeal Registrar on the ground that they were neither required nor permitted by the Court of Appeal Rules.

7 The registrar wrote to the appellant on 20 August 2015 explaining her reasons for rejecting the documents. In relation to the 'notice to admit facts', the registrar pointed out that O 30 r 2 has no application in the Court of Appeal and it is not the function of this court to conduct a fresh factual enquiry into the matters before the court below. The registrar referred the appellant to the decision of this court in Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WASCA 192 [3], where that point was made in relation to interrogatories the appellant had sought to file in a previous appeal. (An application by the appellant for special leave to appeal to the High Court against that decision was dismissed: Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] HCASL 40.)

8 In relation to the 'Referral of legal issue to Court of Appeal', the registrar pointed out that a legal issue can only be referred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to r 67 of the Court of Appeal Rules. That rule enables a legal issue to be referred where a written law provides for a referral. The registrar referred the appellant to the decision of this court in Barkla v Justice David Wallace Newnes [2015] WASCA 120 [11], where that point was made.

9 On the hearing before us, the appellant argued that the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) was a written law for the purposes of r 67. Putting aside the fact that the 'legal issue' sought to be referred is meaningless, that submission is plainly wrong. There is no provision of that Act which would enable a legal issue to be referred to this court, much less the issue the appellant seeks to refer. There is no other written law that could conceivably enable the referral the appellant seeks in this instance.

10 The decision of the registrar to refuse to accept the documents for filing was, with respect, plainly correct, for the reasons the registrar gave. The documents were an abuse of the process of the court.

11 It was for those reasons we dismissed the application.