Legal Research
Cases
Cronin v ANGELES

Cronin v ANGELES

Case [2025] WADC 61 17 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   CRONIN -v- ANGELES [2025] WADC 61
CORAM:   JEYAMOHAN DCJ
HEARD:   9 SEPTEMBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   17 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 18 of 2025
BETWEEN:   PRISCILA CRONIN
Appellant
AND
MARJORIE ANGELES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE OWEN-CONWAY
File Number            :   PER/MINOR/9947/2024

Catchwords:

Magistrates Court appeal - Minor case claim - Whether denial of natural justice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 27, s 29, s 32, s 40, s 43

Result:

Leave to appeal allowed
The appeal is otherwise dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable

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

Alvaro v Fraser & Downsborough Designers Pty Ltd (1990) 20 ALD 762
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175
Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571
Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 110
De Alwis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 42
Defendi v Szigligeti [2019] WASCA 115
Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Ibrahim v The Honourable Justice Carolyn Martin [2012] WASC 338
International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49; (2009) 240 CLR 319
Jones v Darkan Hotel [2014] WASCA 133
Moleirinho v Talbot & Olivier Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 65
MTI v SUL [No 2] [2012] WASCA 87
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36
Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2021] WASCA 25
R v Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306
R v Kelly; Ex parte Hoang Van Duong (1981) 28 SASR 271
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342
Re Mr P G Cockram; Ex parte Tey [2013] WASCA 104
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92
Smart v Albuquerque [2011] WASCA 231
Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA) [2012] WASC 48
Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534
Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASCA 149

JEYAMOHAN DCJ:

Introduction

On 14 May 2024, the appellant, Priscila Cronin, loaned the respondent, Marjorie Angeles, $3,000.
On 14 August 2024, Ms Cronin commenced a minor case claim in the Perth Magistrates Court in the amount of $3,193.50 for payment of the outstanding loan plus interest against Ms Angeles.
On 25 February 2025, Magistrate Owen-Conway ordered that judgment be entered for Ms Cronin in the sum of $300 plus costs fixed at $193.50 (Decision).[1]
[1] Magistrates Court lower court file PE Minor 9947 of 2024 (MB), page 128.
By notice of appeal filed 17 April 2025, Ms Cronin appeals against the Decision on the grounds she was denied…

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 Cronin v ANGELES

Details

AGLC: Cronin v ANGELES [2025] WADC 61
Case: [2025] WADC 61
Decision Date: 17 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court was brought by the plaintiff, Cronin, against Angeles, in the Magistrates Court. Cronin sought damages for an alleged breach of natural justice. Cronin claimed that Angeles, a former landlord, had unfairly evicted him from a property without following due process. The Magistrates Court dismissed Cronin’s claim, finding that the circumstances of the eviction did not breach natural justice principles. Cronin appealed this decision to the higher court, arguing that the Magistrates Court erred in its assessment of the facts and the application of natural justice principles.

The central legal issue was whether Angeles' conduct during the eviction process breached the principles of natural justice. Natural justice requires that decisions affecting a person's rights be made fairly. Cronin argued that the eviction process was flawed, as Angeles did not provide an adequate opportunity for Cronin to respond to the allegations against him before the eviction. Angeles contended that the eviction was lawful and that there was no breach of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal examined the specific facts of the case, including the terms of the lease agreement, the communication between the parties, and the process followed during the eviction. The Court held that Angeles had provided Cronin with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations, and that Cronin had not demonstrated a breach of natural justice. The Court found that the Magistrates Court's decision was correct and dismissed Cronin's appeal. The Court confirmed that the eviction process adhered to the necessary legal standards, and no breach of natural justice occurred.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal beyond dismissing Cronin’s appeal. The decision of the Magistrates Court stood, and Cronin was not entitled to any damages or relief for the alleged breach of natural justice.

Orders