Bride v Shire of Katanning

[2016] WASCA 106

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT  :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   BRIDE -v- SHIRE OF KATANNING [2016] WASCA 106

CORAM:   NEWNES JA

MITCHELL J

HEARD:   23 JUNE 2016

DELIVERED          :   23 JUNE 2016

FILE NO/S:   CACV 28 of 2016

BETWEEN:   EDWARD JAMES BRIDE

WENDY MARGARET BRIDE
Appellants

AND

SHIRE OF KATANNING
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :TOTTLE J

Citation  :SHIRE OF KATANNING -v- BRIDE [2016] WASC 118

File No  :CIV 2401 of 2015

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to appeal from interlocutory order - Refusal of leave to issue subpoenas - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants:     In person

Respondent:     No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellants:     In person

Respondent:     No appearance

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

Shire of Katanning v Bride [2016] WASC 118

The State of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40

1. REASONS OF THE COURT:    The appellants face an application in the Supreme Court under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). A case management direction required that no subpoenas were to issue in the matter without the leave of the court. The appellants sought leave to issue subpoenas to an officer and legal advisers of the respondent. On 10 March 2016, the primary judge refused to grant the appellants leave to issue those subpoenas.

2. The primary judge published reasons for that decision, which summarise the relevant background:  see Shire of Katanning v Bride [2016] WASC 118.

3. The appellants seek leave to appeal against that decision.

4. The appellants also seek an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal.  The delay is relatively modest, and mostly results from the difficulties which the appellants, who do not have legal representation, experienced in preparing a formal appeal notice.  We would grant an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal.

5. The primary judge's decision was interlocutory, so leave to appeal is required under s 60(1)(f) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA). Generally, leave should not be granted unless the decision below is plainly wrong or is attended by sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave and a substantial injustice would be done if it remains undisturbed: The State of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40, 54 ‑ 57.

6. We have considered the grounds of appeal and written submissions advanced by the appellants in support of their application for leave to appeal.  In our view, nothing in those grounds of appeal or written submissions, or the oral submissions advanced today, provide any reason for doubting the correctness of the primary judge's decision.  To the contrary, in our view the primary judge's decision was plainly correct for the reasons he gave.  As the correctness of that decision is not attended by sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave, and none of the proposed grounds are reasonably arguable, leave to appeal is refused.