Boros v Watson

[2000] WASCA 242

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT :   THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION:   BOROS -v- WATSON [2000] WASCA 242

CORAM:   PIDGEON J

IPP J
ANDERSON J

HEARD:   24 AUGUST 2000

DELIVERED          :   24 AUGUST 2000

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1726 of 2000

BETWEEN:   BELA BOROS

Applicant

AND

RANDALL WATSON
Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal and new trial - Application for leave to appeal from a District Court Judgment dismissing an appeal from the Local Court - No error shown - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant:     In person

Respondent:     No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant:     In person

Respondent:     No appearance

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

1. PIDGEON J:  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court against a judgment of Judge Muller.  The circumstance in which it has arisen is that there was a traffic accident involving the applicant.  The applicant brought action which was dismissed in the Local Court.  The action in the Local Court was a claim for damages arising out of the collision.  It was dismissed in the Local Court and there was the appeal to the District Court by Judge Muller.  His Honour gave detailed reasons and came to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed.

2. The applicant in his application for leave has filed an affidavit which sets out arguments as to why there should be a further appeal and as to why the judgment is wrong, and we have heard further submissions from the applicant today.

3. The essential points are that there has been a trial and there has been an appeal.  On the question of whether there should be a further appeal to this Court, the law is set out in the Law of Civil Procedure at page 12,391 where it says that leave will be granted from the decision in the District Court only if it can be shown that an error was made which requires correction.  If important questions of law of general importance are involved, leave may be granted but it ought not in general be granted to give the appellant a second opportunity to dispute questions of fact.

4. Here I have looked carefully at the submissions in the affidavit and of what I have heard today and examined the judgment of Judge Muller as well as the earlier judgment.  I do not consider it has been shown that there was any error on the part of Judge Muller which requires correction, and I do not consider that the appeal raises any important questions of law of general importance.  The questions raised are of great importance to the appellant and to the respondent, but they could not be said to be questions of law of general importance which have to be resolved by an Appeal Court.  As I consider no error has been demonstrated, my view is that leave to appeal must be refused.

5. IPP J:  I agree.

6. ANDERSON J:  I must agree also.