Barkla v Civitella - [2016] WASCA 71

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: BARKLA -v- CIVITELLA [2016] WASCA 71

CORAM: NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 22 APRIL 2016

DELIVERED : 22 APRIL 2016

PUBLISHED : 4 MAY 2016

FILE NO/S: CACV 7 of 2016

BETWEEN: GEOFF BARKLA
Applicant
AND
MARK CIVITELLA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :DAVIS DCJ
Citation  :BARKLA -v- CIVITELLA [2016] WADC 3
File No  :CIV 1717 of 2015

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for review of decision of Court of Appeal registrar to refuse to accept 'notice to admit facts' for filing - Similar document previously rejected - Application an abuse of process

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr S G Daniells

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mills Oakley Lawyers

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

Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] HCASL 40
Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] WASCA 210
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WASCA 192

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 22 April 2016, we dismissed an application by the appellant to set aside a decision of the 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.
The application came about in the following way. On 12 May 2015, the appellant commenced proceedings in the District Court against the respondent by a generally indorsed writ of summons. The action was, as the primary judge observed, one in the long list of proceedings commenced by the appellant arising from his workers' compensation claim against his employer and his construction of s 57A(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA).
The respondent applied for the indorsement of claim to be struck out pursuant to O 20 r 19(1)(a), r 19(1)(b), r 19(1)(c) and r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and for summary judgment against the appellant pursuant to O 16 r 1(1)(a).
On 20 January 2016, the primary judge found that the writ disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Her Honour also concluded that it was an abuse of the process of the court, observing that the writ was another attempt by the appellant to re‑litigate his construction of s 57A(3) of the Act, despite a number of decisions, including decisions of this court and the High Court, against him [98], [100]. The appellant's action was dismissed and judgment entered for the respondent.
On 12 February 2016, the appellant filed an appeal notice in this court. On 24 February 2016, he sought to file two documents in the appeal. One document was headed 'Request for Hearing' and the other was headed 'Notice to admit facts pursuant to the written laws of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Order 30 Rule 2(1)'.…

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 Civitella

Details

AGLC: Barkla v Civitella [2016] WASCA 71
Case: [2016] WASCA 71
Decision Date: 4 MAY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barkla v Civitella is a case where the appellant sought to challenge the Court of Appeal Registrar's decision to refuse the acceptance of certain documents for filing in an ongoing appeal. The appellant's application was premised on his dissatisfaction with the primary judge's dismissal of his writ in the District Court, which was part of a series of legal actions stemming from his workers' compensation claim. The two documents in question were a 'Request for Hearing' and a 'Notice to admit facts', which mirrored a previously rejected document from a different case. The respondent argued that filing these documents would constitute an abuse of the court's process.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's attempt to file the documents in question amounted to an abuse of the court's process, given the similarity to a document that had already been rejected in another case on the grounds of being an abuse of process. The court also needed to consider the broader implications of allowing such documents to be filed, particularly in the context of the appellant's history of litigation.

The court dismissed the appellant's application to set aside the Registrar's decision. It held that the documents were substantially identical to the ones previously rejected and that filing them would indeed be an abuse of process. The court found that the appellant's insistence on pursuing the same arguments and documents, despite their previous rejection, demonstrated a disregard for the judicial process and an attempt to circumvent the court's previous decisions. The court emphasised that allowing such documents to be filed would not only be a waste of judicial resources but also undermine the integrity of the legal process.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the appellant's application be dismissed with costs. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the court's rules and the consequences of abusing the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 22 April 2016, we dismissed an application by the appellant to set aside a decision of the 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. The application came about in the following way. On 12 May 2015, the appellant commenced proceedings in the District Court against the respondent by a generally indorsed writ of summons. The action was, as the primary judge observed, one in the long list of proceedings commenced by the appellant arising from his workers' compensation claim against his employer and his construction of s 57A(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The respondent applied for the indorsement of claim to be struck out pursuant to O 20 r 19(1)(a), r 19(1)(b), r 19(1)(c) and r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and for summary judgment against the appellant pursuant to O 16 r 1(1)(a). On 20 January 2016, the primary judge found that the writ disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Her Honour also concluded that it was an abuse of the process of the court, observing that the writ was another attempt by the appellant to re‑litigate his construction of s 57A(3) of the Act, despite a number of decisions, including decisions of this court and the High Court, against him [98], [100]. The appellant's action was dismissed and judgment entered for the respondent. On 12 February 2016, the appellant filed an appeal notice in this court. On 24 February 2016, he sought to file two documents in the appeal. One document was headed 'Request for Hearing' and the other was headed 'Notice to admit facts pursuant to the written laws of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Order 30 Rule 2(1)'. The 'Request for Hearing' contained 'Request[s]' as follows:The appellant requests a hearing of the matter that the Respondent 'Admits the Facts' of this case and therefore is in Default of Defence.The appellant requests for judgement by default, pursuant to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Order 22 Rule 7(1) [O 22 r 7(1), which deals with judgment in default of defence in an action, is then set out] The document also contains, oddly under a part headed 'Requesting Party's address for service', the following assertion:The Respondent is Deemed to Admit the nine (9) Facts of this case by 'Failing' to respond to the 'Rules' - the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Order 30 Rule 2(1)[O 30 r 2(1), which deals with a notice to admit facts in an action, is then set out] The 'notice to admit facts', in essence, sought admissions by the respondent (a) that the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent asking two legal questions; (b) as to the terms and effect of O 30 r 2(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); (c) of a right of the appellant, pursuant to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), to seek and receive information; (d) that a particular dictionary contains a certain definition; and (e) that the Australian Constitution contains a provision in terms of part of s 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. It is in all material respects the same as the document which, in Barkla v Allianz Australia [2015] WASCA 210, this court held was an abuse of process and properly rejected for filing by the Court of Appeal Registrar. On that occasion, the 'notice to admit facts' was accompanied by a meaningless document headed 'Referral of legal issue to Court of Appeal'.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.