Bell v Cribb [No 2] - [2013] WASCA 6

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: BELL -v- CRIBB [No 2] [2013] WASCA 6

CORAM: PULLIN JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 20 DECEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 20 DECEMBER 2012

PUBLISHED : 10 JANUARY 2013

FILE NO/S: CACV 129 of 2012

BETWEEN: CARL WILLIAM BELL
First Appellant
ALLCERT HOLDINGS PTY LTD as trustee for W J TRUST trading as TWIN STAR RESOURCES
Second Appellant
AND
NEIL RAYMOND CRIBB AS LIQUIDATOR OF COSTANOZA PTY LTD (IN LIQ)
First Respondent
COSTANOZA PTY LTD (IN LIQ)
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :BEECH J
Citation  :CRIBB -v- BELL [2012] WASC 346
File No  :COR 48 of 2012

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for a review of a decision of a single judge

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant               :     In person
Second Appellant          :     No appearance
First Respondent           :     Mr K L Christensen
Second Respondent      :     Mr K L Christensen

Solicitors:

First Appellant               :     In person
Second Appellant          :     No appearance
First Respondent           :     Gadens Lawyers
Second Respondent      :     Gadens Lawyers

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

Bell v Cribb [2012] WASCA 234

REASONS OF THE COURT: This matter was listed to hear an application for a review of the decision of Newnes JA which was made on 13 November 2012 pursuant to r 8(1) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA). After the hearing the application was dismissed with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.
The application before Newnes JA was for a stay of examination under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) pending the hearing of this appeal.
The background to the matter was recorded by Newnes JA as follows (Bell v Cribb [2012] WASCA 234):
Pursuant to orders made by Master Sanderson on 5 April 2012, the first respondent issued a summons for the examination of the appellant under s 596B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). On the return of the examination summons before a registrar, the appellant refused to take an oath or affirmation or to answer questions. The summons was relisted on a later date, when the appellant took the same approach. The first respondent then applied for an arrest warrant.
The summons and the application for an arrest warrant came before Beech J on 18 September 2012. On that date, the appellant handed to his Honour a document entitled 'Notification of Constitutional issue to be raised in the Supreme Court of Western Australia on 18th of September 2012 in accordance with section 78B of the Judiciary Act Commonwealth'.
The document stated that the constitutional issues were:
(1)The ability of a registrar to sit as a Court and make judgments.
(2)The registrar is an employee of a Company and not an officer of the crown.
(3)The judge sitting in the Supreme Court is not an officer…

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 Bell v Cribb [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Bell v Cribb [No 2] [2013] WASCA 6
Case: [2013] WASCA 6
Decision Date: 10 JANUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bell v Cribb [No 2], the applicant, Bell, sought a review of a decision made by a single judge in a prior proceeding. The matter before the court involved the procedural aspects of the judicial review process and the conditions under which a decision made by a single judge could be reviewed. The court was tasked with determining whether the application met the necessary criteria to warrant a review of the earlier decision.

The primary legal issue for the court was to assess whether the application for review was an appropriate use of the court's discretion. The court considered whether the application demonstrated that there was a sufficient basis to question the correctness of the decision made by the single judge. Additionally, the court had to determine if there were any procedural irregularities or errors of law that warranted a review.

The court examined the application closely and concluded that it did not meet the threshold for a review of the single judge's decision. The court found that the application did not provide sufficient grounds to justify questioning the correctness of the earlier decision. Furthermore, the court determined that there were no procedural errors or legal mistakes that would warrant a review. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for review.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for review was dismissed, and no further review of the single judge's decision was permitted. The court's ruling emphasised the stringent criteria that must be met for a review to be granted, reinforcing the importance of demonstrating substantial grounds for questioning a prior judicial decision.

Orders