Burgess v Legg

Case [2023] WADC 5

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   BURGESS -v- LEGG [2023] WADC 5

CORAM:   LEVY DCJ

HEARD:   10 OCTOBER 2022

DELIVERED          :   23 JANUARY 2023

FILE NO/S:   APP 40 of 2022

BETWEEN:   KELLY BURGESS

Appellant

AND

JOHN LEGG

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram:   MAGISTRATE SCUTT

File Number            :   PER/GCLM/7330/2020


Catchwords:

Appeal from Magistrates Court - Negligence - Sudden incapacitating event - Whether respondent breached his duty of care to appellant - Onus and standard of proof - Duty of Magistrate to give reasons - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)
District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Magistrate's decision set aside
Judgment in favour of the appellant in the sum of $14,065

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D M G Burton
Respondent : In person (via audio-link)

Solicitors:

Appellant : McCabes
Respondent : Not applicable

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

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172

Auro Pty Ltd v Drage [2020] WADC 24

Billy Higgs & Sons Ltd v Baddeley [1950] NZLR 605

Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194

Dowsing v Goodwin (1997) 27 MVR 43

Jockel v Jockel [1963] SR (NSW) 230

Knott v Royal Exchange Assurance (1955) S.A.S.R 33

Leahy v Beaumont (1981) 27 SASR 290

Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165

Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823

Robinson v Glover [1952] NZLR 659

Stoeckel v Harpas (1971) 1 SASR 172

Van der Velde v Halloran [2011] WASCA 252

Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218

Waugh v James Allen Ltd [1964] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt [1980] HCA 12; (1980) 146 CLR 40

LEVY DCJ:

  1. This is an appeal brought by Kelly Burgess (the appellant) against the decision of Magistrate Scutt dismissing his general procedure claim brought against John Legg (the respondent).

  2. The appellant's claim was for loss and damage caused to his motor vehicle arising from a collision with a vehicle driven by the respondent on 25 February 2020.

  3. Neither the fact that there was a collision between the vehicles driven by the appellant and the respondent, nor the quantum of damages (agreed at $14,065) was in dispute.  Nor was there any dispute that the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant.  The primary issue in dispute was whether the appellant could prove that the respondent was negligent in his driving of the motor vehicle and therefore liable to pay the damages claimed by the appellant.

The respondent's participation in the appeal

  1. The appellant was represented by counsel at the hearing, as well as (different) counsel on the appeal.  The respondent was unrepresented at both the hearing before the learned Magistrate and on the appeal.

  2. On the day scheduled for the hearing of the appeal, before commencing to…

Continue reading Burgess v Legg

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Burgess v Legg [2023] WADC 5
Case
[2023] WADC 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burgess v Legg involved an appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, where the appellant, Burgess, alleged that the respondent, Legg, breached his duty of care, resulting in a collision. The primary legal issue was whether Legg breached his duty of care towards Burgess, and if so, to what extent. Another issue was the adequacy of the reasons provided by the magistrate in the original decision.

The court examined the legislative framework under Section 31 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), which dictates that the reasons for a judgment need not be exhaustive but must sufficiently identify the facts and law upon which the decision is based. The court referred to Auro Pty Ltd v Drage and other precedents to determine if the magistrate's reasons were adequate. It held that the reasons must expose the process by which the decision was reached, enabling the parties to understand the basis of the decision and the losing party to determine any grounds for appeal. The court concluded that while the reasons did not need to be extensive, they must be substantive and achieve the required function and purpose of the decision.

Ultimately, the court found that the magistrate's reasons were adequate, as they identified the key facts and legal principles applied, thereby fulfilling the requirements of Section 31. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the appellant did not demonstrate any legal, factual, or discretionary error in the magistrate's decision. The court emphasized that the appeal would only be upheld if the appellant could show that the original decision was erroneous, which was not the case here.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Section 31 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) (MCA) sets out the requirements for a court to provide reasons for a decision. Section 31 is reproduced below:31.Judgments, content of(1)The Court's reasons for a judgment in a case -(a)need only identify the facts that the Court has accepted in coming to its decision and give the reasons for doing so; and(b)need only identify the law that the Court has applied in coming to its decision and give the reasons for doing so; and (c)need not canvass all the evidence given in the case; and(d)need not canvass all the factual and legal arguments or issues arising in the case.(2)The fact that a judgment is given orally or in accordance with subsection (1) is not of itself a ground for reversing or modifying it on an appeal. In Auro Pty Ltd v Drage[115](28 February 2020), Staude DCJ at [37] - [40] helpfully set out some of the relevant cases and principles to be applied in considering whether or not the reasons for judgment were adequate. This included the following matters: •'[J]udicial officers have a duty to deliver reasons that expose the process by which a decision has been reached' which 'enables the parties to understand the basis of the decision,' and 'a losing party to determine whether or not they have any grounds on which to appeal the decision'.[116] •'The realities of pressure of work and limited time in the Magistrate's Court must be acknowledged. Section 31 of the Magistrate's Court Act obviates any need for a magistrate to canvass all of the evidence given in the case or to canvass all of the factual and legal arguments or issues arising in the case. These dispensations appear to recognise the summary nature of the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court. Reasons can be adequate and comply with s 31 of the Magistrates Court Act without having to be unduly long. It is the substantive content of the reasons rather than their length, which is important'.[117] •'Whether the content of reasons is adequate will depend on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised'.[118] •'The court will look at the reasons as a whole and, if necessary in the context of the evidence, to determine whether they give a sense of what was intended in a way that achieves their required function and purpose'.[119] •'It does not automatically follow that because reasons for decision are inadequate, that an appealable error has occurred. Sometimes, having regard to the reasons as a whole, an inadequacy in reasoning may not give rise to any miscarriage of justice. Further, an appeal court may, in certain circumstances, even where inadequate reasons are given, decide the matter for itself, for example, where the only conclusion open on the evidence is that reached by the trial judge'.[120][115] Auro Pty Ltd v Drage[2020] WADC 24. [116] Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165 [53] (Hall J).[117] Manonai v Burns [56] (Hall J).[118] Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [2011] WASCA 218 [63] (Murphy JA).[119] Velez Pty Ltd v Tudor [63] (Murphy JA).[120] Van der Velde v Halloran [2011] WASCA 252 [102] (Buss JA, Newnes JA & Mazza J).

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

As the appeal is by way of a re-hearing, it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate error in the court below.[17] [17] Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission[2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 [14]. Consequently, the powers of the District Court on an appeal are only enlivened if the appellant demonstrates that the original decision made by the magistrate the subject of the appeal was the result of some legal, factual or discretionary error.[18] [18] Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172 [23]. If an error is demonstrated by the appellant, the District Court may make any of the following orders:[19] (a)confirm, vary or set aside all or a part of the Magistrate Court's judgment; (b)give any judgment and make any order that the Magistrates Court could have given or made; (c)order a new hearing in, or trial of, the case to be held in the Magistrates Court; (d)order the Magistrates Court to enter judgment in favour of a party; (e)make an order as to the costs of the appeal and as to the costs in the Magistrates Court and, in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, as to the costs in the District Court; (f)make any orders that are necessary as a result of other orders it has made. [19] MCCPA s 43(7)(a) - s 43(7)(f). The hearing proceeded before the learned Magistrate on 18 May 2022. The evidence before the learned Magistrate comprised the Statements of Intended Evidence tendered on behalf of both the appellant and respondent (Exhibits 1 and 4 respectively), both of whom were cross‑examined at the trial below, as well as various exhibits tendered during the hearing. The exhibits included: •The appellant's Statement of Intended Evidence which attached three photographs of St Albans Road on the approach to the bend in the road where it becomes Folly Road, as well as a satellite photo of Folly Road and St Albans Road in Baldivis (Exhibit 1). •A USB containing video footage taken near the collision site shortly after the vehicles collided (Exhibit 2). •A bundle comprising:(a)five photographs of the appellant's vehicle taken after the collision;(b)five photographs of the respondent's vehicle taken after the accident;(c)a photo of Folly Road showing skid marks on the road;(d)a Google Maps photo of Folly Road;(Exhibit 3). •The respondent's Statement of Intended Evidence which attached a photograph of the respondent and a copy of his driving licence issued in 1969 (Exhibit 4). •A bundle of three photos of Folly Road on the approach to St Albans Road (Exhibit 5). •A photo of Folly Road showing skid marks on the road (Exhibit 6). •A satellite photo of Folly Road and St Albans Road in Baldivis (Exhibit 7). The general area in which the collision occurred is semi-rural. St Albans Road is a single carriageway. There is a single lane in each direction allowing vehicles to travel north or south along the carriageway. The side of the road comprises grass and gravel. There are paddocks on each side of the road with numerous trees.