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…

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 Barkla v Allianz Australia

Details

AGLC: Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] WASCA 210
Case: [2015] WASCA 210
Decision Date: 21 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barkla v Allianz Australia involved an application by the respondent, Allianz Australia, to review a decision made by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The Registrar had refused to accept documents that Allianz intended to file, considering them an abuse of process. The legal dispute centred on the appropriateness of the Registrar's decision and whether Allianz's documents were indeed an abuse of the court's process.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Registrar's decision was lawful and whether the documents in question constituted an abuse of process. This involved examining the nature of the documents and their relevance to the proceedings, as well as assessing whether the Registrar's refusal to accept them was justified. The court had to consider the procedural rules governing the submission of documents and the discretion of the Registrar in managing court processes.

After careful consideration, the court found that the Registrar's decision was correct. The documents in question were deemed to be an abuse of process, and therefore, the Registrar was justified in refusing to accept them for filing. The court upheld the Registrar's decision, holding that it was neither unlawful nor an abuse of the court's discretion. Consequently, the application by Allianz to review the decision was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of Allianz.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to review decision of Court of Appeal Registrar dismissed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.