Carmody v WA Solicitors Pty Ltd - [2019] WADC 165

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   CARMODY -v- WA SOLICITORS PTY LTD [2019] WADC 165
CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT
HEARD:   21 NOVEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   5 DECEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 3161 of 2019
BETWEEN:   GERALD MICHAEL CARMODY
First Plaintiff

GM CARMODY HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Plaintiff

AND

WA SOLICITORS PTY LTD
First Defendant

AUSTRALASIAN SOLICITORS PTY LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to transfer action from Magistrates Court to this court and consolidate - Consideration of relevant legislation and consequences of delay and dual representation

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 39

Result:

Application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	Mr P Brunner
Second Plaintiff	:	Mr P Brunner
First Defendant	:	Mr N Milosevic
Second Defendant	:	Mr N Milosevic

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	Bailiwick Legal
Second Plaintiff	:	Bailiwick Legal
First Defendant	:	HHG Legal Group
Second Defendant	:	HHG Legal Group

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

Freeman v McCabe [2008] WADC 125

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:

By chamber summons filed 11 September 2019 the plaintiff to this action sought to have a Magistrates Court action GCLM 13720/2016 remitted to this court and consolidated with the present proceedings.
The authority upon which the applicant relies to authorise the transfer of the action to this court is to be found in the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) and the section upon which the applicant relies is s 39 of the Act which is in the following terms:
39.Transfer of Magistrates Court case to superior court
(1) In this section -
superior court means the District Court or the Supreme Court.
(2)A party to a case in the Court may apply to a superior court for an order that all or a part of the case be transferred to the superior court.
(3)The application must be made in accordance with rules of court that apply in the superior court.
(4)The superior court may make such an order if it is satisfied that all or a part of the case is within its jurisdiction and -
(a)involves a claim by the claimant or another party, or an issue, that is outside the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction; or
(b)should be dealt with by the superior court because of its complexity or because of a question of law involved.
(5)A superior court that makes an order under subsection (4) may also make any other necessary orders including orders as to -
(a)the registry of the superior court in which the case is to be conducted; and
(b) the payment of fees in the superior court; and
(c)the costs in the case in relation to proceedings in the Magistrates Court.
(6)On receiving an order made under subsection (4) a registrar of the Magistrates Court is to send the Court's file to the superior court.
(7)If an order is made under subsection (4) the superior court is to deal with the case as if it had been commenced in that court.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Carmody v WA Solicitors Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] WADC 165
Decision Date: 5 DECEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carmody v WA Solicitors Pty Ltd involved a plaintiff, Carmody, who filed a claim in the Magistrates Court against a law firm, WA Solicitors Pty Ltd. Carmody sought damages for alleged professional negligence by the defendant law firm. After the case had been proceeding in the Magistrates Court, Carmody applied to transfer the action to the Supreme Court and consolidate it with another related proceeding. The defendants opposed the transfer, citing concerns about potential delays and the complications of dual representation.

The central legal issues before the court included whether the application to transfer the action was within the time limits prescribed by statute, and whether the transfer would cause substantial injustice or prejudice to the parties. The court was also required to consider the consequences of any delay in the proceedings and whether the transfer was necessary to achieve justice between the parties. The court needed to balance the statutory provisions with the overarching principle of achieving a just outcome in the proceedings.

The court determined that the application was made within the prescribed time limits under the relevant legislation, and that the potential delays and dual representation did not amount to substantial injustice. The court found that the transfer was necessary to avoid piecemeal litigation and to achieve a just and efficient resolution of the parties' disputes. The application was therefore allowed, and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court for consolidation with the related proceeding. This decision underscores the importance of procedural timeliness and the need for judicial economy in the resolution of disputes.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the proceedings be transferred from the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court and consolidated with the related proceeding. This decision highlights the court's commitment to ensuring that legal disputes are resolved in a manner that is both timely and efficient, while also considering the potential impacts on the parties involved.

Orders