Legal Research
Cases
Carra v Hamilton

Carra v Hamilton

Case [2001] VSC 215 28 June 2001

Jurisdiction

Standing

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Statutory Interpretation

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Constitutional Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 5484 of 2000

COLIN ALISTAIR CARRA

IRENE BEVERLEY CARRA

Plaintiffs

CATHRYN ELIZABETH HAMILTON

LINDSAY WALTER HAMILTON

ROSINA HAMILTON

and

MAGISTRATES' COURT OF VICTORIA

Defendants

No. 7362 of 2000

CATHRYN ELIZABETH HAMILTON

LINDSAY WALTER HAMILTON

ROSINA HAMILTON

Plaintiffs

COLIN ALISTAIR CARRA

IRENE BEVERLEY CARRA

and

MAGISTRATES’ COURT OF VICTORIA

Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Balmford J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 June 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Carra v Hamilton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 215

---

Unrecorded judgement delivered without notifying the parties - Where a judge becomes unable to sit before the conclusion of a proceeding involving the hearing of evidence – delivery of judgements in open court - whether the lack of notice means the judgement was not delivered in open court - where no decision sheet was prepared at the time of delivery and the Registrar later generated a back-dated decision sheet.

The Court’s discretion to extend the time for the commencement of a proceeding – what constitutes special circumstances under Rule 56.02(3) Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996.

The authentication of orders – whether the fact that the Magistrate was no longer a Magistrate when he authenticated the order affects the validity of the authentication.

Certiorari – Mandamus.

Constitution Act 1975 – section 87(2).
County Court Act 1958 – section 15.
Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 – ss 4, 18, 109, 125, 131.
Magistrates’ Court General Regulations 1990 – Regulation 301.
Practice Note No 1 of 1999.
Supreme Court Act 1986 – section 58.
Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996 – Orders 56, 60.

Brennan v Brennan (1953) 89 CLR 129.
Buronga Truck Sales & Service Pty Ltd v Callipari [1984] VR 59.
Carroll v Price [1960] VR 651.
Coleshill v Manchester Corporation [1928] 1 KB 776.
Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163.
Denysenko v Dessau [1996] 2 VR 221.
Guardians of the Poor of West Ham Union v Churchwardens, Overseers and Guardians of the Poor of St Matthew, Bethnal Green [1895] 1 QB 662.
Hansford v Judge Neesham (1994) 7 VAR 172.
Holtby v Hodgson (1889) 24 QBD 103.
Orr v Holmes (1948) 76 CLR 632.
Prencipe v Nisselle (unreported, decided on 20 April 1999).
Prime Minister John Piss The Family Court and Legal Aid v Electoral Registrar [2000] VSC 512.
R v Registrar-General; Ex parte Lange [1950] VLR 45.
R v The Public Service Commissioner for the Commonwealth of Australia; Ex parte Killeen (1914) 18 CLR 586.
R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; Ex parte Bott (1933) 50 CLR 228.
Seapack Melbourne Pty Ltd v Clerk of Courts, Magistrates’ Court, Yarram (unreported, delivered on 12 June 2000).
The Forest Lake [1968] P 270.
Wandin Springs v Wagner [1991] 2 VR 496.
Wentworth v Rogers (No 3) (1986) 6 NSWLR 642.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Carras	Mr GM…

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.

Continue reading Carra v Hamilton

Details

AGLC: Carra v Hamilton [2001] VSC 215
Case: [2001] VSC 215
Decision Date: 28 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerns the procedural fairness of the manner in which judgement was delivered in the Magistrates' Court, as well as the circumstances under which a proceeding can be commenced in the Supreme Court. The appellant, Mr Carra, sought an order for certiorari and mandamus, challenging the validity of certain orders and procedures in the Magistrates' Court. The respondent, Ms Hamilton, argued that the proceedings should be dismissed as they were not brought within the requisite time limits and that the orders in question were validly made.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the lack of notice regarding the unrecorded judgement delivered without notifying the parties rendered the judgement invalid, and whether the failure to prepare a decision sheet at the time of delivery and the subsequent back-dating of the decision sheet affected the validity of the judgement. Additionally, the court had to determine if the circumstances of the case constituted special circumstances under Rule 56.02(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996, warranting an extension of time for the commencement of the proceeding.

The court held that the lack of notice regarding the unrecorded judgement did not invalidate the judgement as it was delivered in open court, and the absence of a decision sheet did not affect the validity of the judgement as it was later authenticated by the Magistrate. The court further found that the circumstances of the case did not constitute special circumstances warranting an extension of time for the commencement of the proceeding. Consequently, the appellant's application for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed, and the proceeding was found to be statute-barred.

As a result of the court's decision, the appellant's application for certiorari and mandamus was dismissed, and the proceeding was found to be statute-barred. No further orders were made in relation to the matter.

Orders