Bride v Shire of Katanning

Case [2015] WASCA 99


BRIDE -v- SHIRE OF KATANNING [2015] WASCA 99



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2015] WASCA 99
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)19/05/2015
Case No:CACV:6/20151 MAY 2015
Coram:NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA
1/05/15
3Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:EDWARD JAMES BRIDE
SHIRE OF KATANNING

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure
Whether grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Case References:

Bride v Shire of Katanning [2015] WASCA 77
Shire of Katanning v Bride [No 5] [2014] WASC 470


JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BRIDE -v- SHIRE OF KATANNING [2015] WASCA 99 CORAM : NEWNES JA
    MURPHY JA
HEARD : 1 MAY 2015 DELIVERED : 1 MAY 2015 PUBLISHED : 19 MAY 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 6 of 2015 BETWEEN : EDWARD JAMES BRIDE
    Appellant

    AND

    SHIRE OF KATANNING
    Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Whether grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed


Category: B


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : In person
    Respondent : Mr D McLeod

Solicitors:

    Appellant : In person
    Respondent : McLeods Barristers & Solicitors



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

Bride v Shire of Katanning [2015] WASCA 77
Shire of Katanning v Bride [No 5] [2014] WASC 470


    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

    (This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 1 May 2015 and has been edited from the transcript).


1 The court has before it two matters. One is the appellant's interim application, dated 27 March 2015, for orders that the respondent and/or the respondent's solicitors provide to the appellant certain documents and that the appellant have leave to call three witnesses to be examined to give evidence on the hearing of the appeal. The other is a registrar's notice to attend to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, on the basis that none of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of success.

2 The appeal is in respect of an interlocutory decision of Chaney J in Shire of Katanning v Bride [No 5] [2014] WASC 470. His Honour dismissed an application by the appellant ostensibly arising out of a taxation of the respondent's costs, which had been completed in about October 2014. The application to Chaney J, the appellant's interim application of 27 March 2015, and this appeal seek to ventilate, yet again, the same kind of scurrilous accusations against a solicitor without a proper basis, to which we referred in Bride v Shire of Katanning [2015] WASCA 77 [56]. For the reasons given in our earlier decision and for the reasons given by Chaney J in the judgment under appeal, none of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of success.

3 The appellant's interim application of 27 March 2015 and the appeal are dismissed.

Details
AGLC
Bride v Shire of Katanning [2015] WASCA 99
Case
[2015] WASCA 99
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bride v Shire of Katanning involved an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the District Court of Western Australia. The dispute arose from an incident where the plaintiff fell from a horse and sustained injuries. The plaintiff sought damages against the defendant, the Shire of Katanning, alleging negligence in the maintenance of a bridle path. The case was heard and dismissed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding. This required the court to examine whether the appeal had sufficient merit based on the facts presented. The primary focus was on the argument that the District Court had erred in its assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

The court determined that the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success. It found that the District Court's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish negligence on the part of the defendant, and therefore the appeal did not present a viable challenge to the original decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

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.