Chioatto v Sandona - [2001] NSWSC 1002

CITATION: Chioatto v Sandona [2001] NSWSC 1002

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12489 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 24 & 25 September 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 November 2001

PARTIES :

SANTE CHIOATTO
(Plaintiff)
v
ONORINA SANDONA AS ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANO SANDONA
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
D Ash
(Plaintiff)
R Brender
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Agostini Jarrett
(Plaintiff)
Beilby Poulden Costello
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Appeal from Magistrate - error of law - Local Court (Civil Claims) Act 1970 s 69

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902 Part 5 Division 2 s 104(5)
Local Court (Civil Claims) Act 1970 s 69
Supreme Court Rules

CASES CITED: Abs v Matheson (1898) 104 LTJ 268
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 17 CLR 394
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
In re Brookers (Aust). Limited (1986) 41 SASR 380
Ogilivie v Adams [1981] VR 101
Owen v Woolworths Properties Limited (1956) 96 CLR 154

DECISION: See paragraph 32

DLJ: 1

[2001] NSWSC 1002

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

12489 of 2001

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

8 November 2001

SANTE CHIOATTO
(Plaintiff)

v

ONORINA SANDONA AS ADMINISTRATIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANO SANDONA
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (Appeal from Magistrate – error of law –

Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970

s 69)

: This is an appeal from a decision of a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970. It is an appeal as provided for by s 69 of that Act and in particular, (and on this there is no issue), s 69(2) which provides that a party to proceedings under the Act who is dissatisfied with the judgment or order of the Court as being erroneous in point of law may appeal to this Court. The appeal to the Supreme Court from the Local Court exercising the jurisdiction to which I have referred is otherwise acknowledged in the Justices Act 1902 Part 5, Division 2, s 104(5).

2 The mechanism for the institution of such appeals is provided by Pt 51B of the Rules of this Court.

3 By Summons filed on 9 August 2001 the plaintiff in this Court (the defendant in the Local Court) seeks relief as follows:

“1. An order that the decision of His Worship Mr Gould in Local Court matter 3592/01 be set aside.

2. A declaration that the Magistrate erred in his defining of the construction of a contract between the parties.

3. A declaration that the Magistrate erred in his finding that the Limitation Act 1969 did not apply.

4. An order that the matter to returned (

to His Worship Mr Gould to hear and determine the matter of the appeal.

5. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs”.

4 Pursuant to Pt 51B r 8 a Statement of Grounds was filed by the plaintiff. Ultimately the third ground only was relied upon to the effect that assuming the learned Magistrate found correctly that the making of an actual demand…

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 Chioatto v Sandona 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: [2001] NSWSC 1002
Decision Date: 8 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chioatto v Sandona arose from a dispute between the plaintiff, Chioatto, and the defendant, Sandona, which was initially heard in the Local Court. The plaintiff sought a review of a decision made by the Local Court magistrate, arguing that the magistrate had erred in law. The matter was subsequently heard in the Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining whether the magistrate had indeed erred in law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate had made an error in law that warranted the intervention of the Supreme Court. Specifically, the court was required to consider the interpretation and application of the Local Court (Civil Claims) Act 1970, particularly section 69, which deals with appeals from magistrate decisions.

The Supreme Court examined the magistrate's decision and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in law. The magistrate had misapplied a statutory provision, leading to an incorrect outcome. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the magistrate's decision. The matter was remitted back to the Local Court for re-determination in accordance with the correct legal principles.

The Supreme Court made orders quashing the decision of the Local Court magistrate and remitting the matter back for re-determination. These orders effectively nullified the previous decision and allowed the case to proceed anew, ensuring that the correct legal principles would be applied in the Local Court's re-assessment of the matter.

Orders