CLARK -v- WYATT [2002] WASCA 85

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 85
Case No:	SJA:1002/2002	Heard:	4 APRIL 2002
Coram:	WHEELER J	Delivered:	18/04/02
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STEPHEN JOSEPH CLARK ROBERT BRUCE WYATT
Catchwords:	Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Hezam bin Badron v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990099; 4 March 1999 Casserly v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 990164; 31 March 1999 Cramer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980620; 28 October 1998 Hinchliffe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 15

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : CLARK -v- WYATT [2002] WASCA 85 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 4 APRIL 2002 DELIVERED : 18 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1002 of 2002 BETWEEN : STEPHEN JOSEPH CLARK

Appellant

AND

ROBERT BRUCE WYATT

Respondent

Catchwords:

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J W M Foulsham

Respondent : Mr T M Andrews

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Mark Andrews & Associates

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

Hezam bin Badron v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990099; 4 March 1999

Case(s) also cited:

Casserly v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA (Scott J); Library No 990164; 31 March 1999
Cramer v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980620; 28 October 1998
Hinchliffe v The Queen [2001] WASCA 15

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER J: The respondent was convicted on his own plea of guilty on 19 December 2001 of unlawfully threatening Catherine Maree Wyatt and of unlawfully assaulting Catherine Maree Wyatt thereby doing her bodily harm. His Worship imposed a "global fine" of $100. The appellant concedes that a non-custodial disposition was open to his Worship, while the respondent in turn concedes that a fine of $100 did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and that in any event, a "global penalty" should not have been imposed as a matter of principle. There is therefore little need to go into too much detail of the facts or of the relevant principles. However, I propose to make a number of brief observations, since there are features of this hearing which appear to me to be most undesirable.

2 The first thing which should be noted is that immediately upon the pleas of guilty being announced, his Worship then asked counsel for the respondent whether he was aware of the Family Violence Court. Some brief discussion followed in relation to that matter. Then his Worship asked whether there was any record and asked the question "And I take it his antecedents wouldn't be sufficient whereby the court could grant him a spent conviction?". The reference to a spent conviction, in particular, suggests that his Worship had taken…

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 Clark v Wyatt

Details

AGLC: Clark v Wyatt [2002] WASCA 85
Case: [2002] WASCA 85
Decision Date: 18 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiff, Clark, against the defendant, Wyatt, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case centred around a dispute concerning the ownership of a parcel of land. The plaintiff claimed that he was the rightful owner of the land based on a prior unregistered interest, while the defendant asserted that he had purchased the land in good faith from a third party who had no interest in the land. The case was brought before the court to determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim and the ownership of the land in question.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's prior unregistered interest in the land was binding on the defendant, who claimed to have purchased the land in good faith from a third party. The court had to determine whether the doctrine of notice applied, and if so, whether the defendant had actual, constructive, or imputed notice of the plaintiff's interest. The court also had to consider the extent to which the doctrine of indefeasibility of title applied to this situation and whether there were any exceptions to this doctrine that could potentially affect the defendant's title.

The court found that the doctrine of notice was applicable in this case and that the defendant had actual notice of the plaintiff's interest in the land. The court held that the defendant was bound by the plaintiff's prior unregistered interest, as he had actual notice of it at the time of purchasing the land. The court further determined that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title did not apply in this case due to the defendant's actual notice of the plaintiff's interest. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, finding that he was the rightful owner of the land in question.

The court allowed the appeal and determined that the plaintiff was the rightful owner of the land, thereby setting aside the earlier decision that had favoured the defendant. The court's decision was based on the finding that the defendant had actual notice of the plaintiff's prior unregistered interest at the time of purchasing the land, which rendered the doctrine of indefeasibility of title inapplicable.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.