BARKLA -v- CIVITELLA [No 2] [2016] WASCA 111

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 111
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	01/07/2016
Case No:	CACV:7/2016	Heard:	23 JUNE 2016
Coram:	BUSS JA NEWNES JA	Delivered:	23/06/16
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GEOFF BARKLA MARK CIVITELLA
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appellant's action in District Court dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and abuse of process Action sought determination of legal issue Issue res judicata Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222 Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BARKLA -v- CIVITELLA [No 2] [2016] WASCA 111 CORAM : BUSS JA

NEWNES JA

HEARD : 23 JUNE 2016 DELIVERED : 23 JUNE 2016 PUBLISHED : 1 JULY 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 - Appellant's action in District Court dismissed as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and abuse of process - Action sought determination of legal issue - Issue res judicata - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal 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 Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222
Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: On 23 June 2016, we dismissed the appellant's appeal on the basis that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding. We said we would publish reasons for our decision. These are the reasons.

2 The matter came before the court on a registrar's notice to attend, dated 9 June 2016, for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(i) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Court of Appeal Rules) on the basis that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding. After that notice was issued, the appellant filed an interim application alleging, in effect, that the appellant was being denied procedural fairness by the notice.

3 It is necessary before dealing with those issues to set out briefly the relevant background.

Background

4 The appellant claimed workers' compensation in respect of a stress-related injury that occurred in the course of his employment in 2010. His employer's workers' compensation insurer, Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (Allianz), accepted liability for the appellant's claim and paid the appellant the full prescribed amount of weekly compensation payments…

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 [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Barkla v Civitella [No 2] [2016] WASCA 111
Case: [2016] WASCA 111
Decision Date: 1 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant against the respondent, seeking a determination of a legal issue. The District Court had dismissed the appellant's action as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and constituting an abuse of process. The appellant sought to challenge the decision by the respondent's solicitors, who had declined to provide a written opinion on a particular legal issue. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's action was barred by the principle of res judicata, given that the facts of the case were distinct from the previous proceedings.

The court had to determine if the appellant's action was an abuse of process, considering that it was essentially seeking a declaratory judgment on a legal issue that had already been determined in a different context. The court noted that the principle of res judicata applied to prevent the relitigation of the same issue between the same parties. The court examined whether the legal issue in question was identical to that which had been decided in prior proceedings, and if the facts of the current case were substantially different. The court held that the appellant's action was indeed an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate an issue that had already been conclusively determined in a different factual context.

Given the findings that the appellant's action was barred by res judicata and constituted an abuse of process, the court dismissed the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of not allowing parties to circumvent final judgments by repackaging their claims in different forms. The court concluded that the appellant's action was not only an abuse of the court's process but also disclosed no reasonable cause of action. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the District Court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.