Legal Research
Cases
Blackman v Leppard (No. 3)

Blackman v Leppard (No. 3)

Case [2016] FCCA 272 17 February 2016

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BLACKMAN v LEPPARD (NO. 3)

[2016] FCCA 272

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Small claim – underpayment of wages – Court orders made – Court orders not complied with – Property Seizure and Sale Order issued – interpleader claim.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Extension of time to file affidavit – consideration of factors for extension of time.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interpleader claim – whether any prospect of success.

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), Part 4, Division 6, ss.3, 59
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.59(2), 69, 172
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.570(2)
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05(2), 3.05, 6.01, 9.04, 16.05
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r.1.40

AHI15 v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCA 64
Blackman v Leppard [2014] FCCA 1444
Blackman v Leppard (No. 2) [2015] FCCA 2344
Howells v Owners Corporation of Strata Plan 33149 [2015] FCCA 1920
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344; (1984) 58 ALR 305; (1984) 7 ALD 315
Sims v RM Capital Pty Ltd & Anor (No. 3) [2015] FCCA 1301
SZMWH v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 879
SZQGO v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 177; (2012) 125 ALD 449
Vu v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 59; (2008) 101 ALD 211

Applicant:

MICHAEL DAMIEN BLACKMAN

Respondent:

BRENDAN RAYMOND LEPPARD

File Number:

PEG 40 of 2014

Judgment of:

Judge Antoni Lucev

Hearing date:

On written submissions, and in relation to the Applicant’s Application in a Case on 4 February 2016

Date of Last Submission:

4 February 2016

Delivered at:

Perth

Delivered on:

17 February 2016

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant:

In person

For the Respondent:

In person

For the Sheriff:	No appearance (excused by Court order)
For GSR Industries the Claimant by Interpleader	No appearance

ORDERS

That the Applicant’s Application in a Case be dismissed.
The claim by GSR Industries by way of Interpleader for relief in these proceedings is dismissed.
There be no order as to costs:
(a)of the Applicant’s Application in a Case;
(b)of the claim by GSR Industries by way of Interpleader for relief, save that there be liberty to the Sheriff to apply for costs within 30 days.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 40 of 2014

MICHAEL DAMIEN BLACKMAN

Applicant

And

BRENDAN RAYMOND LEPPARD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

There are before the Court two applications:
a)an application filed on 19 October 2015 by the Sheriff for relief by Interpleader (“October 2015 Interpleader Application”) under Part 4, Division 6 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (“Enforcement Act”). The October 2015 Interpleader Application is supported by an affidavit of the Deputy Sheriff of the Federal Court, District Registry, Perth, Mr John Antoni Klarich, sworn 19 October 2015 (“Deputy Sheriff’s October 2015 Affidavit”); and
b)an application in a case by Mr Blackman filed 21 December 2015 (“Mr Blackman’s Application in a Case”), which is that an affidavit, sworn…

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 Blackman v Leppard (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: Blackman v Leppard (No 3) [2016] FCCA 272
Case: [2016] FCCA 272
Decision Date: 17 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Blackman v Leppard (No. 3)*, the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an interpleader claim arising from a Property Seizure and Sale Order. The original dispute involved an underpayment of wages claim brought by Mr Blackman against Mr Leppard, which resulted in court orders for payment. When these orders were not complied with, a Property Seizure and Sale Order was issued. Ms Leppard then made an interpleader claim, asserting ownership of the property that had been seized under the order.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether Ms Leppard's interpleader claim had any prospect of success, and consequently, whether an extension of time should be granted for her to file an affidavit in support of her claim. The Court was required to assess the merits of Ms Leppard's claim to the seized property against the enforcement of Mr Blackman's judgment.

Judge Lucev applied the principles governing interpleader claims, which require the claimant to demonstrate a *prima facie* case or a serious question to be tried. The Court considered the evidence presented by Ms Leppard regarding her ownership of the seized goods. In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Court weighed the applicant's reasons for the delay against any prejudice to the respondent and the overall justice of the case. The Court found that Ms Leppard had not established a sufficient prospect of success for her interpleader claim to warrant an extension of time.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Ms Leppard's application for an extension of time and refused to grant leave to proceed with the interpleader claim. The Property Seizure and Sale Order in favour of Mr Blackman was therefore permitted to proceed.

Orders