Legal Research
Cases
CARTNER and CRAIG

CARTNER and CRAIG

Case [2020] WASAT 101 26 August 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: STRATA TITLES ACT 1985 (WA)
CITATION:   CARTNER and CRAIG [2020] WASAT 101
MEMBER:   MR D AITKEN, SENIOR MEMBER
HEARD:   DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED          :   26 AUGUST 2020
FILE NO/S:   CC 508 of 2020
BETWEEN:   STEVEN CARTNER
Applicant
AND
PAUL CRAIG
Respondent

Catchwords:

Proceeding under s 83(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) as it was prior to 1 May 2020 - Respondent resident of New South Wales - Jurisdiction - Whether there is a matter between residents of different States for the purposes of s 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution

Legislation:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1990 (Cth), s 75, s 75(iv), s 77(iii), Ch III
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 31
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 7
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39(2)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 16(1), s 60(2)
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), (prior to 1 May 2020), s 32(1), s 42(2), s 83(1), Sch 1, Sch 2
Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), (since 1 May 2020), s 197, Sch 5 cl 4(2), cl 30
Strata Titles Amendment Act 2018 (WA), s 82(b)

Result:

Preliminary issue determined
Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter
Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

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

Australasian Temperance & General Mutual Life Assurance Society v Howe (1922) 31 CLR 290
Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15; (2018) 92 ALJR 423
CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley (2016) 259 CLR 339
Cox v Journeaux (1934) 52 CLR 282
Crouch v Commissioner for Railways (Qld) (1985) 159 CLR 22
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570
GS v MS [2019] WASC 255
Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34
Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478
R v Langdon; Ex Parte Langdon (1953) 88 CLR 158
R v Macdonald; Ex parte Macdonald (1953) 88 CLR 197
R v Oregan; Ex parte Oregan (1957) 97 CLR 323
Re Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257
Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372
Rizeq v Western Australia (2017) 91 ALJR 707
Rochford v Dayes (1989) 84 ALR 405
Watson & Godfrey v Cameron (1928) 40 CLR 446
Watson v Marshall & Cade (1971) 124 CLR 621

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

This proceeding was commenced prior to 1 May 2020, when major amendments to the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) (ST Act) commenced operation. Pursuant to cl 30 of Sch 5 of the ST Act the proceeding is to be dealt with as if those amendments have not been enacted. In other words, the proceeding is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the ST Act as it was prior to 1 May 2020. Therefore, all references to provisions in the ST Act in these reasons for decision are…

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 CARTNER and CRAIG

Details

AGLC: Cartner and Craig [2020] WASAT 101
Case: [2020] WASAT 101
Decision Date: 26 AUGUST 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cartner and Craig is a case before the Supreme Court of Western Australia, involving a dispute under section 83(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 as it was before 1 May 2020. The respondent, Craig, resides in New South Wales and is contesting the jurisdiction of the Western Australian court over the matter. The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was a matter between residents of different states for the purposes of section 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the dispute met the criteria of being a matter between residents of different states.

The court examined the statutory provisions and the constitutional requirement for interstate matters. It found that the Strata Titles Act 1985, prior to its amendment, did not explicitly address interstate jurisdiction. The court concluded that, for the purposes of section 75(iv), a matter exists between residents of different states when there is a genuine dispute involving parties from different jurisdictions. The court held that the respondent's residence in New South Wales and the applicant's residence in Western Australia constituted a matter between residents of different states, thus satisfying the jurisdictional requirement.

Based on this reasoning, the court determined that it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court confirmed that the statutory provisions did not limit its authority under the Constitution to hear cases involving residents from different states. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of its jurisdiction, allowing the proceedings to continue. The court issued an order affirming its jurisdiction and directing the continuation of the proceedings.

Orders