Coutts v Walls

Case [2019] ACAT 66

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL



COUTTS v WALLS (Civil Dispute) [2019] ACAT 66

XD 159/2019

Catchwords:               CIVIL DISPUTE – defamation – application for removal to Supreme Court  

Legislation cited:        ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 18, 31, 32, 48, 53, 61, 83

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 45
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 No 2 (NSW) s 54
Magistrates Court Act 1930 ss 268, 270
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) s 77

Subordinate

Legislation cited:        Court Procedures Rules 2006 rr 1430, 1432, 1440, 1441

Cases cited:Bell & Robert De Castella and Rob De Castella’s Smartstart for Kids Limited [2014] ACAT 9

Bentley v Cash Resources Australia Pty Ltd [2002] VCAT 1399

Camillo Concrete Structures Pty Ltd v Baulderstone Pty Ltd [2010] VCAT 285
CIC v ACT Planning and Land Authority, Mainore Pty Ltd and ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal [2013] ACTSC 96

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Slaveska [2008] VCAT 2072
Jin v Ai [2011] ACTSC 70
Kalis v Waltham [2010] ACTSC 94
Raline Industries PL v MJPE Investments PL [2006] VCAT 1607
Sanderson Motors Pty Ltd v Kirby [2000] NSWSC 924
Superal-Wallace v Indypendent Pty Ltd& Anor [2016] ACAT 144

Tribunal:Senior Member R Orr QC

Date of Orders:  18 July 2019

Date of Reasons for Decision:      18 July 2019

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY        )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          XD 159/2019

BETWEEN:

BRETT COUTTS

Applicant

AND:

SCOTT WALLS

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member R Orr QC

DATE:18 July 2019

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The application to refer these proceedings to the Supreme Court is refused.

2.The application is listed for a conference and evaluation on 14 August 2019 at 10:00am.

………………………………..

Senior Member R Orr QC

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.Brett Coutts (applicant or Mr Coutts) brings a civil dispute application in defamation against Scott Walls (respondent or Mr Walls). The alleged defamation arises from a post on the Facebook site of a third party.

2.Mr Walls brings an application for removal of the proceedings to the Supreme Court under section 83(2) of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACAT Act).

Summary of tribunal decision

3.The respondent put forward a range of reasons why the matter should be transferred to the Supreme Court, in particular:

(a)the complexity of the matter;

(b)that the Supreme Court had better processes for dealing with this complexity;

(c)the costs liability the respondent would incur in the tribunal in light of the complexity of the matter; and

(d)the public interest involved.

4.The tribunal has been given jurisdiction to hear this matter; no challenge to this jurisdiction was made. The applicant has chosen this forum. The fact that the respondent would prefer a different costs regime is not a reason to remove. The possible complexity of the proceedings is not a reason for doing so. It is true that the resolution of the dispute may usefully involve pleadings and case management processes which are more typically adopted by…

Continue reading Coutts v Walls

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Coutts v Walls [2019] ACAT 66
Case
[2019] ACAT 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coutts v Walls involved a defamation case where the plaintiff sought to have the matter referred to the Supreme Court. The defendant opposed the referral, arguing that the matter should remain in the tribunal. The dispute arose from comments made by the plaintiff that the defendant claimed were defamatory. The parties appeared before the tribunal, which had to determine whether the matter was appropriate for referral to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the tribunal were whether the alleged defamation was of a nature warranting referral to the Supreme Court, and if the application met the criteria for such a referral. The tribunal considered the seriousness and complexity of the defamation claim, the potential for significant publicity, and the need for a higher court to determine the matter. It also assessed whether the application complied with procedural requirements.

The tribunal found that the defamation claim did not meet the threshold for referral to the Supreme Court. It held that the matters were not of such a serious or complex nature as to warrant referral, and the potential for publicity did not justify a referral. The tribunal also noted that the application did not comply with procedural requirements, as it was not supported by the necessary documentation. Therefore, the application to refer the proceedings to the Supreme Court was refused.

The tribunal ordered that the application for referral to the Supreme Court be refused and scheduled a conference and evaluation for 14 August 2019 at 10:00 am. This date was set to facilitate further discussion and assessment of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The application to refer these proceedings to the Supreme Court is refused.

2. The application is listed for a conference and evaluation on 14 August 2019 at 10:00am.

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.