Cronin v ANGELES - [2025] WADC 61

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 natural justice. Ms Cronin requires leave to appeal the Decision out of time.
For the reasons which follow, leave to appeal out of time is allowed and the appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Proceedings in the Magistrates Court

The claim can be summarised as follows.
Ms Cronin claims that she lent Ms Angeles money on three separate occasions.
The first was allegedly on 2 April 2024, where at the request of Ms Angeles' mother, Marivic Angeles made on 1 April 2024, Ms Cronin lent Ms Angeles and her boyfriend, $9,000.[2] Ms Cronin claims that Ms Angeles and her boyfriend were 'buying and selling' cars privately.[3] Ms Cronin says that Marivic Angeles assured her that she would receive $500 in profit from the (sale of the) car.[4] Ms Cronin received payment of $9,500 in less than a week.[5]
[2] MB, page 3, Minor Case Claim Form 4 (CF).
[3] MB, page 3, CF.
[4] MB, page 3, CF.
[5] MB, page 3, CF.
The second was on 23 April 2024. Ms Cronin says that she received a text from Ms Angeles asking for a loan of $3,000 for the same purpose, and on the same terms, with repayment to be made in two weeks' time.[6] Ms Cronin received payment of $3,500 on 9 May 2024.[7]
[6] MB, page 3, CF.
[7] MB, page 3, CF.
The third was on 14 May 2024. Ms Cronin says that received a further text from Ms Angeles asking for a loan of $3,000 for the same purpose, and on the same terms, with repayment to be made in two weeks' time (Loan).[8] It is this loan which is the subject of the claim.
[8] MB, page 3, CF.
On 18 May 2024, Ms Angeles deposited $500 'interest' in Ms Cronin's savings account. On 12 July 2024, Ms Cronin texted Ms Angeles seeking payment of the $3,000. Ms Angeles deposited $700 in 'interest'.[9] On 11 August 2024, Ms Cronin texted Ms Angeles seeking the full payment of the Loan by 14 August 2024.[10]
[9] MB, page 3, CF.
[10] MB, page 3, CF.
Ms Angeles, in her response to claim dated 22 August 2024, relevantly says that she met payment of the Loan in full.[11]
[11] MB, page 20, CF.
The parties attended a number of procedural hearings including a status conference on 30 September 2024.
On 14 October 2024, Ms Cronin filed a statement of evidence of witness in support of her claim in the following terms:[12]
[12] Priscila Cronin Form 32A - Statement of Intended Evidence of a Witness dated 14 October 2024 (First Cronin Statement); MB, page 26.
…
Second: The defendant's loan of $3,000 is still unpaid to date. The voluntary payments made by the defendants mother Marivic Angeles were applied as follows:
22 May 2024      $500
23 May 2024      $500
These were payments from the defendant's mother Marivic Angeles loan of $10,000 dated 22 April 2024.
Please refer to Exhibit: page 125.
…
31 May 2024    $500
17 June 2024    $500
Defendant's loan of $3,000 dated 14 May 2024 (voluntary offered payment as promised for their buy and sell of cars).
Please refer to exhibit 2 & 2B.
…
Third:I do not have a business of lending money. I only lend money to the defendant, the parents, brother and Lucy. I lent them money in good faith to help them in their business and family needs. Whatever additional payments I received, they were voluntarily offered to me.
…
Jurie Angeles
…
14.5.24Issued. $3,000.
31.5.24Received. $500 v offered.
17.6.24Received. $700 v offered.
On 10 January 2025, Ms Angeles filed a statement of evidence of witness in support of her claim in the following terms:[13]
[13] Marjorie Angeles Form 32A - Statement of Intended Evidence of a Witness dated 10 January 2025 (Angeles Statement); MB, page 78.
…
1)Admission of Debt
a.I acknowledge that on 14 May 2024, I owed the claimant $3,000, Ms Priscilla Cronin.
2)Payments Made Toward Debt
a.I confirm that payments totalling $2,700 have been made directly to the Claimant;
b.These payments were as follows:
i.31 May 2024: $500.
ii.17 June 2024: $700.
iii.4 July 2024: $500.
iv.29 July 2024: $500.
v.9 August 2024: $500.
Total payment: $2,700.
c.Attached as Annexure 'A' are bank transfer records supporting these payments.
3)Clarification Regarding Form 15A Response to Claim (lodged 22 August 2024)
a.On 22 August 2024, I lodged a Form 15A Response to Claim that contained incorrect information about the payments made to the Claimant;
b.The inaccuracies in that document were due to a mistake caused by my mother, Marivic Angeles, who was managing the payments and providing the information;
c.My mother was under significant stress at the time because of the court proceedings, which led to her inadvertently misrepresenting the amounts and dates of the payments; and
d.The correct payment details are now provided in Section 2 of this statement and are supported by the attached bank records.
4)Balance Owed
a.As of 10 January 2025, the remaining balance owed to the Claimant is $300; and
b.I confirm my intention to repay this balance at the earliest opportunity, or as directed by the Court.
…
On 15 January 2025, Ms Cronin filed a further statement of evidence in support of her claim in the following terms:[14]
[14] Priscila Cronin Form 32A - Statement of Intended Evidence of a Witness dated 15 January 2025 (Second Cronin Statement); MB, page 110.
Explanation of Payment:
1.I confirm that the $3,000 of debt by the defendant Marjorie dated 14 May 2024 is still outstanding. Marjorie borrowed $3,000 and agreed to repay it within 2 weeks. This payment has not occurred and no explanation has been provided.
Please refer to Exhibit: 2,10.
2.I texted Marjorie 3 times but she never replied. Even though there was no written agreement for the extra $500 it was understood that she and her boyfriend 'Moo' would share some profit with me as done in the past. They deal in buying and selling used cars privately and need to borrow.
Please refer to Exhibit: 10.
3.On 31 May 2024, the defendant's mother Marivic Angeles voluntarily offered and deposited $500 into my account and the defendant was able to pay the $3,000.
Please refer to Exhibit: 7.
4.The car that the defendant and her boyfriend 'Moo' bought had to be fixed before the buyers could purchase it. On 17 June 2024 Marivic voluntarily offered and deposited $700 and verbally stated that the car was still being repaired.
The matter proceeded to hearing and trial on 25 February 2025.
The learned magistrate accepted into evidence the First Cronin Statement and the Second Cronin Statement, but did not receive into evidence Exhibit 14 from the First Cronin Statement on the basis that it had nothing to do with the claim.[15] In addition, the following documents attached to the First Cronin Statement were struck out on the basis of relevance (being character references): the document from the Catholic Parish of Applecross; the statutory declaration of Dante Maribbay; the statutory declaration of James Cronin attached to the First Cronin Statement.[16]
[15] Magistrates Court transcript of proceedings heard on 25 February 2025 (25 February 2025 ts) 55; MB, page 228.
[16] 25 February 2025 ts 55; MB, page 228.
The learned magistrate accepted into evidence the Angeles Statement except for pars 5 and 6 of the statement and all of the character references attached to that statement (on the grounds of relevance).
Ms Cronin and Ms Angeles were given the opportunity to ask questions in cross-examination of each other. Ms Angeles' mother, Marivik Angeles, was called as a witness by Ms Angeles and gave evidence‑in‑chief and was also cross‑examined by Ms Cronin.
It is convenient to summarise the evidence of Marivik Angeles, which was as follows:[17]
1.That Marivik Angeles made give payments totalling $7,500 to Ms Cronin on behalf of her daughter, Ms Angeles.
2.That she made these payments instead of her daughter because her daughter is a student, and she asked Marivic Angeles to pay on her behalf because she did not have the money.
3.That Marivic Angeles paid Ms Cronin $500 every week and has a receipt for electronic (payment) from her bank to Ms Cronin's account.
4.That in making the payments to Ms Cronin, Marivic Angeles sometimes forgot to include her daughter's name. But for the payment made 31 May, Marivic Angeles recorded this against the name 'Payment Jorie'. Jorie being Marjorie Angeles, the defendant.
5.That for the payment of $700, Marivic Angeles put $200 extra because it was a late payment and that this is part payment of the debt of $3,000.
6.That another payment of $500 was made on 4 July and a final payment on 9 August.
7.That she made the payments as payment for Ms Angeles' debt to Ms Cronin in respect of the loan.
[17] 25 February 2025 ts 79 - ts 94; MB, pages 251 - 266.
By way of closing submission, Ms Cronin put to the learned magistrate that the payments of $500 and $700 received, totalling $1,200, in respect of the $3,000 loan the subject of the claim was 'the profit' (or interchangeably referred to as 'the interest').
In summarising her position by way of closing submission, Ms Angeles put to the learned magistrate as follows:[18]
ANGELES, MS: Yes. Your Honour, I will state based on my statement and the truth. I can confirm to now that I already made the payment to the claimant of $2700, which are in annexure A, and the bank transfer recording supporting these payments. So 1 May 2024, 17 June 2024, 4 July 2024, 29 July 2024 and lastly 9 August 2024. And as of today, I am confidently that the remaining balance owed to the claimant is $300. Thank you.
[18] 25 February 2025 ts 96; MB, page 268.
In reaching her Decision, the learned magistrate determined that:[19]
[19] 25 February 2025 ts 97; MB, page 269.
1.On 14 May 2024, Ms Angeles approached Ms Cronin for a loan of $3,000 which she promised to repay in two weeks (ie around 27 May 2024).
2.That Ms Angeles asked to borrow the $3,000 to purchase a motor vehicle for her own use and not to buy and sell at a profit.
3.That it is not in dispute that there was no charge payable, and that no interest was or would be payable on the $3,000 loan amount.
4.That Mrs Angeles had paid Ms Cronin $2,700 of the $3,000 loan on behalf of Ms Angeles.
5.Ms Angeles admitted that she owed $300 of the $3,000 loan and that having considered the evidence, the calculations by Ms Angeles are found to be correct.
6.That Ms Cronin, who is not the holder of a financial services licence or an Australian creditors licence, is, from the evidence, including Ms Cronin's own evidence, a regular moneylender to a number of people, not just Ms Angeles' family.
7.That the relevant 'voluntary payments' received by Ms Cronin were in fact intended to be by Ms Angeles, and on her behalf and expressly described as 'Jorie' in the payment transactions, by Marivic Angeles, repayments of the principal loan amount of $3,000. These are the payments that were made on 9 August 2024 in the sum of $400, 17 June 2024 in the sum of $700, the amount paid on 31 May 2024 in the sum of $500, and 15 August 2024 in the sum of $500, totalling $2,200.
8.That the payment made on 29 July was one that was made expressly but orally on behalf of Ms Angeles by her mother Marivic Angeles and that Marivic Angeles' evidence at trial is accepted in this regard.
9.That an additional payment of $800 by Marivic Angeles to Ms Cronin made on 13 August 2024, $500 of which related to Ms Angeles' loan.
10.That the payments of $500 and $700 were not 'voluntary payments' or 'gifts' from, or on behalf of Ms Angeles to Ms Cronin, but instead were part payments of the principal made in respect of the debt and reduction of the debt.

The appeal to this court

Pursuant to s 40(2) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2005 (WA) (MCCP Act) an appeal from a judgment of the Magistrates Court in a minor case is subject to s 32 of the MCCP Act.
Section 32(3)(b) of the MCCP Act provides, relevantly, that an appeal against a judgment in a minor case may be made only on the grounds that there has been a denial of natural justice. There is no right of appeal on the merits.[20]
[20] Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148 [55] (Newnes JA, with whom Pullin JA agreed generally, and Buss JA agreed on this issue).
Where an appeal is brought under s 32(3) of the MCCP Act, pt 7 of the MCCP Act applies, which deals with appeals generally. The onus is on Ms Cronin as the appellant to demonstrate a denial of natural justice.[21]
[21] Jones v Darkan Hotel [2014] WASCA 133 [31] (judgment of the court).
The hearing of the appeal is not a rehearing. Section 40(4)(b) of the MCCP Act requires the court to proceed on the basis of the material and evidence that were before the Magistrates Court. The appeal court may ascertain what material or evidence was before the lower court in any manner it considers is sufficient.[22]
[22] MCCP Act, s 43(2).
No new evidence was sought to be adduced in the appeal. I have therefore determined the appeal on the evidence that was before the learned magistrate.

Grounds of appeal

By notice of appeal filed 17 April 2025, Ms Cronin appealed against the Decision. The sole ground of appeal is denial of natural justice, which Ms Cronin augmented in her notice of appeal and outline of submissions dated 16 June 2025. These can be summarised as follows:
1.Bias and apprehended bias.
2.Denial of opportunity to present evidence.
3.Inadequate opportunity to cross-examine.
4.Failure to consider relevant evidence.
5.Improper conduct at conclusion of hearing.

Litigant in person appeal

At the hearing of the appeal on 9 September 2025, Ms Cronin appeared as a litigant in person without the assistance of an interpreter. I was mindful that the trial of the lower court proceedings, both parties had the assistance of an interpreter. However, when asked, Ms Cronin confirmed that she was ready to proceed with the hearing of her appeal in person, and without the need for an interpreter and engaged with the hearing. Ms Cronin confirmed that she intended to rely on her written submissions and the evidence and materials before the lower court.
By order of this court made 19 August 2025, the learned registrar made orders that service of the notice of appeal on the respondent via email on 22 July 2025 and the service by Malcolm Raymond Barret at Kabayan Buffet 243 Walter Road, West Morley, WA, 6062 on 20 June 2025 be good and sufficient service of the notice of appeal. Ms Angeles was not present at the hearing of the appeal and has not filed a notice of intention to respond.
As Ms Cronin is a litigant in person in the appeal, she is entitled to some leniency in relation to compliance with the court rules.[23] I approach the documents in which she articulates her appeal with some flexibility.[24] I need to be astute to ensure that, in a poorly expressed or unstructured document in which she sets out her case, there is no viable case which, with appropriate amendment or permissible assistance from the court, could be put into proper form.[25]
[23] Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87 [10] (reasons of the court).
[24] Wentworth v Rogers(No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534, 536 - 537 (Kirby P), 543 (Hope JA, with whom Samuels JA agreed); Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA) [2012] WASC 48 [10] (Pritchard J).
[25] Ibrahim v The Honourable Justice Carolyn Martin [2012] WASC 338 [21] (Beech J); Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288 [15] (EM Heenan J, with whom Murray & Le Miere JJ agreed).
At the same time, I also need to ensure that any latitude given to Ms Cronin as a litigant in person does not deprive Ms Angeles of her rights to procedural fairness and a fair hearing, notwithstanding that she chose not to appear at the hearing of the appeal.[26]

Issues arising for determination

[26] Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36 [47] (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Nettle, Gordon & Edelman JJ); Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASCA 149 [76] (judgment of the court); Moleirinho v Talbot & Olivier Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] WASCA 65 [51] (judgment of the court).

A number of grounds articulated by Ms Cronin assert, in substance, errors of fact in respect of the learned magistrate's alleged failure to consider relevant evidence including matters to do with the repayment of the loan.[27] What is in substance an error of fact (or even of law) cannot be 'dressed up' as a denial of natural justice.[28] These matters do not form part of the grounds of appeal.
[27] Appellant's outline of submissions dated 16 June 2025, par 23, page 6.
[28] R v Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306 [62], [87] (Barker J, with whom Murray J & Roberts‑Smith JJ agreed); Alvaro v Fraser & Downsborough Designers Pty Ltd (1990) 20 ALD 762, 766 (Malcolm CJ, with whom Seaman & Nicholson JJ agreed).

Ms Cronin raises matters which are said to arise after judgment was delivered as a ground of appeal on the basis that the learned magistrate engaged in improper conduct at the conclusion of the hearing (ie responding with hostility and refusing Ms Cronin's right to ask a procedural question). As these matters arose after the conclusion of the hearing, they may not be the subject of an appeal. In any event, a review of the transcript does not support the contention raised.
Of the remaining matters, the following issues arise for determination:
1.Leave to appeal out of time.
2.Was there a denial of natural justice because the learned magistrate did not give Ms Cronin sufficient opportunity to present her case?
3.Was there a denial of natural justice because the learned magistrate did not give Ms Cronin sufficient opportunity to cross examine Ms Angeles?
4.Was the learned magistrate biased?

Leave to appeal out of time

An appeal cannot be commenced more than 21 days after the date of judgment, unless the District Court gives leave to do so.[29] The last date for filing a notice of appeal was 18 March 2025.
[29] MCCP Act, s 40(3).
Ms Cronin's notice of appeal was filed on 17 April 2025 and was therefore filed out of time. In a sworn affidavit, Ms Cronin provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.[30]
[30] Affidavit of Priscila Cronin sworn 17 April 2025.
As the delay was only short and there was no prejudice to Ms Angeles, leave to proceed with the appeal is granted.
I now turn to the substantive issues for determination in this appeal.

Was there a denial of natural justice because the learned magistrate did not give Ms Cronin sufficient opportunity to present her case?

Ms Cronin's position, as it appears in the notice of appeal and the outline of submissions, can be summarised as follows:
1.That the learned magistrate failed to permit Ms Cronin to fully present her evidence, including the loan arrangement, prior repayments, and the cultural practice of voluntary profit‑sharing instead of interest.
2.Ms Cronin was interrupted repeatedly during her evidence.
3.Ms Cronin was prevented from presenting documentation (text messages) supporting the debt and history of repayment.
4.Ms Cronin was prevented from explaining the distinction between profit-sharing and interest, despite it being critical to Ms Cronin's position.

Disposition

The term natural justice generally refers to the requirement that a party to proceedings be given a fair hearing. This normally requires that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case or to answer the case against them, by evidence and argument.[31] What is necessary to satisfy the requirement that a party be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case cannot be determined in the abstract but only in the context of the particular case under review.[32] As observed by the Court of Appeal in Defendi v Szigligeti,[33] the application of the requirements of procedural fairness to a court requires analysis of the procedures of the court, and the legislation and rules which govern it.
[31] See Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571, 589 (Rich J); International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49; (2009) 240 CLR 319 [54] (French J); see also [88] (Gummow & Bell JJ), [141] - [146] (Heydon J). See also Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92 [51] (Newnes JA, with whom Pullin & Murphy JJA agreed).
[32] Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [57].
[33] Defendi v Szigligeti [2019] WASCA 115 [48].
The requirements of natural justice in this case are therefore to be viewed in the context of the minor case procedure of the Magistrates Court. The issue in respect of this ground is whether Ms Cronin had been given reasonable or sufficient opportunity to prepare her case, including by the filing of evidence, so as to be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present her case.[34]
[34] Re Mr P G Cockram; Ex parte Tey [2013] WASCA 104 [7] - [8] (judgment of the court) (Tey).
Ms Cronin commenced her claim on 14 August 2024 with the matter proceeding to trial some six months later on 25 February 2025. Prior to trial, there were a number of procedural hearings on 30 September 2024, 25 November 2024, 6 January 2025 and 13 January 2025 respectively.
At the listing conference on 13 January 2025, Ms Cronin was asked to confirm that the matters she sought to rely on at trial, was before the court:[35]
HIS HONOUR: Stop again. Listen. Listen carefully. You have given me a 26 page witness statement. That should contain all of your relevant evidence. Does it contain all of your relevant evidence, including all supporting documents? Yes or no.
…
HIS HONOUR: No, no. It wasn't a - it was a yes or no question. Have you given all of your relevant documents to the court in your 26 page witness statement that you previously lodged? Yes or no.
CRONIN, MS: Yes, I did. However, the claimant made another statement, stating this and this and this and this, the payment. So I need to provide you evidence of what are those payments for, which is not there.
HIS HONOUR: Okay. At the beginning of the hearing do you remember me asking you do you want to lodge another statement. I asked that question twice and you never answered me. I will ask it a third time. Do you want to lodge another statement?
CRONIN, MS: Yes, your Honour.
[35] Magistrates Court transcript of proceedings heard on 13 January 2025 (13 January 2025 ts) 8; MB, page 166.
The learned magistrate, at the listing conference on 13 January 2025, provided Ms Cronin with ample opportunity to require additional time to produce to the court this further evidence:[36]
HIS HONOUR: Equally, ma'am, I don't want to rush you with your statement. I want to make sure that you do your statement correctly, and in full form with all the materials, and also that your opponent gets a chance to think about it. So I will give you the - if you need a little bit more time - can you do 24 January still or do you want me to push that out a bit more?
…
HIS HONOUR: … Do you understand why I am making that order, Ms Cronin? I'm going to make the trial date 25 February. I am going to give you 24 January as the deadline for you to do your statement. That way she has a month to consider what you have said, and prepare. All right. Do you understand, Ms Cronin, or was there something further you wanted to say?
CRONIN, MS: But I would prefer 29 January.
HIS HONOUR: I know you would. But I don't, and it's up to me, not you. Okay. And the reason I don't prefer that previous time is because, to repeat what I said before, you need to do your statement, and I want to give you a reasonable period of time to do that. 24 January is a reasonable period of time. That's a couple of weeks, roughly, from today - slightly less than that. And then she will have a month to think about that, and you will have a trial on 25 February …
HIS HONOUR: Do you want me to make it 27 January for your statement, if you need a little bit more time?
CRONIN, MS: No. What I am trying to say, I don't need it to submit it anymore. I don't need. Because everything is ..
HIS HONOUR: Yes, you do, because you have told me you're going to say some extra things at the trial. And if you're going to do that - -
[36] 13 January 2025 ts 10 - ts 12; MB, pages 169 - 171.

The Second Cronin Statement was filed on 15 January 2025, some 12 days prior to the date ordered by the court (ie 24 January 2025).
The matters the subject of the lower court trial are documented in some 100 pages of transcript. At the hearing, the learned magistrate, sought clarification about the amount in dispute:[37]
CRONIN, MS: … The defendant's loan of 3000 is still unpaid today.
…
CRONIN, MS: Whatever additional payments I received, they were voluntary offered to me.
HER HONOUR: What are the additional payments that you did receive?
CRONIN, MS: It's, like, they will say - the mother will say, tubo, which is a profit.
INTERPRETER (CLAIMANT): Interest.
CRONIN, MS: Interest.
…
[37] 25 February 2025 ts 8 ‑ ts 10; MB, pages 180 - 182.
Of these additional payments amounting to $1,200, the submission put to the learned magistrate by Ms Cronin, was that this was 'voluntarily offered' to her by way of a profit sharing:[38]
CRONIN, MS: The extra payments were - it's like - it's like a profit sharing. It's voluntary, offered to me the 500 and then the 700 …
…
HER HONOUR: So you made $1,200 on a $3,000 loan.
…
CRONIN, MS: Yes, your Honour.
…
[38] 25 February 2025 ts 12 - ts 14; MB, pages 184 - 186.

The learned magistrate sought clarification as to the basis on which Ms Cronin sought payment of the entirety of the Loan amount in circumstances where the evidence put to the lower court by Ms Cronin was that she had received payment of $1,200 from the defendant already:[39]
…
HER HONOUR: All right. So you've received $1200. Why are you claiming $3000?
…
CRONIN, MS: Because the 500 and the 700 is a profit sharing and voluntary offered by the cost - by the defendant's mother.
HER HONOUR: But it wasn't offered by the defendant.
…
[39] 25 February 2025 ts 15; MB, page 187.
A review of the lower court transcript of the trial of the matter shows that Ms Cronin continued to seek to rely on evidence and materials not before the court:[40]
[40] 25 February 2025 ts 27; MB, page 199.
CRONIN, MS: Because most of the time, we just understand each other by talking, by - - -
HER HONOUR: Do you have a text message?
CRONIN, MS: No. It's - it's by word of mouth.
INTERPRETER (CLAIMANT): It's just by word of mouth.
HER HONOUR: So when did this conversation take place - - -
…
And:[41]
[41] 25 February 2025 ts 34; MB, page 206.
HER HONOUR: Sorry. I'm just dealing with your evidence. I don't need - whether I need it or not, you haven't given it to me, and I'm not going to allow anyone to adduce any additional evidence today because Magistrate Crawford made it very clear that this was going to be the evidence of the hearing. Because you don't speak English and you need an interpreter, I need you to elaborate on your evidence. So I'm just raising with you the documents that you are raising with me, and I'm asking you to explain how something that doesn't - you say was sent on 11 August deals with a conversation you apparently had with Ms Angeles' mother before 31 May is relevant.
You were paid $500 on 31 May, you say the voluntary payment. You had a discussion with Ms Marivik. You said you had a discussion with the defendant in her shop - in her mother's shop, and her mother. I'm asking you to elaborate on that. You've taken me to August. Let me be clear, I'm trying to give you the best opportunity
…

CRONIN, MS: Yes.
HER HONOUR: - - - to put your case to me - - -
CRONIN, MS: Yes.
HER HONOUR: - - - so that I can understand it.
…

This included the learned magistrate seeking clarification as to the basis of the accounting by Ms Cronin of the 'voluntary' payments of $500 and $700, totalling $1,200 received:[42]
[42] 25 February 2025 ts 40; MB, page 212.
HER HONOUR: I'm just putting this to you, so you have a fair opportunity. The defendant's evidence shows some payments which say 'Payment Jorie'. That's the 500 and the 700, and then there's another one in August, "Payment Jorie", 500. So going back to your exhibit - that document, exhibit 5, how do you - where's the - where is the text, email or note from the defendant's mother that allows you to allocate the payment to - - -
CRONIN, MS: It's all on my mobile, the text of the mother.
HER HONOUR: Well, you just told me this is - well, okay, well, then isn't that really important. If you're saying it's the mother who tells you how to allocate the payments, do I not - did I not need that?
CRONIN, MS: That is all in my mobile. I - I should have brought ‑ ‑ ‑
HER HONOUR: So you don't have that payment in your - that text ‑ ‑ ‑
…
HER HONOUR: - - - in your evidence?
CRONIN, MS: - - - all of this. The texts are on Marivik Angeles' case.
HER HONOUR: You don't have - - -
CRONIN, MS: I didn't bring it.
…
HER HONOUR: They're not in your statement anywhere. I'm not missing some pages somewhere.
CRONIN, MS: That's why I answer the - the question on my - the only thing is I did not bring it. It's all on my - it's all in my mobile, all the texts.
HER HONOUR: Just answer my question.
CRONIN, MS: I don't - sorry.
…
And:[43]
CRONIN, MS: Okay. I never asked for any profit. They're the ones imposing - - -
HER HONOUR: You mean interest? Profit and interest
CRONIN, MS: Sorry, I kept on saying = sorry. Interest, okay. I never imposed - I have all the texts, which is relevant, and I can show on my next - I have a court hearing on 26 March and I will show - - -
HER HONOUR: I'm not interested in any other hearing.
CRONIN, MS: As I said - - -
HER HONOUR: I'm not interested in who owes - I'm only interested in this debt.
…
[43] 25 February 2025 ts 95; MB, page 267.
A review of the lower court transcript shows that Ms Cronin was reminded by the learned magistrate of her opportunity to provide clarification and present evidence about her case:[44]
HER HONOUR: Thank you. Now, Ms Cronin, all the questions are finished. Correct? This is an opportunity, if there's anything you want to clarify, if you were cut off giving the answer, not cut off giving some evidence that you weren't asked about. Is there anything that you were asked about that you were unable to answer fully?
I think I answer everything. Okay. All right. Thank you. You can leave the witness box and take your material with you. Thank you very much.
[44] 25 February 2025 ts 70; MB, page 242.
Based on a review of the lower court file, Ms Cronin appears to be seeking to enforce terms of a purported agreement for 'interest' or 'profit' in respect of the Loan that are so vague in nature and not properly documented, such that they are not capable of being understood by reference to the evidence and materials available. Ms Cronin's own evidence at trial was that 'whatever additional payments' she received 'were voluntarily offered' to her.[45]
CRONIN, MS: Okay: I do not have a business of lending money. I only lend money to the defendant, her parents, brother, and Lucy Avellaneda. I lend them money in good faith and help them in their business and family needs. Whatever additional payments I receive, they were voluntarily offered to me.
HER HONOUR: Okay. Continue.
CRONIN, MS: I also lend money for friends, acquaintances, who are desperately in need without asking or expecting anything in return.
…
[45] 25 February 2025 ts 12 - ts 14; MB, pages 184 - 186.
That is, even if Ms Cronin had satisfied me that she was denied natural justice in the manner alleged in respect of the evidence sought to rely on (which is not the case here), it is not clear to me that the evidence would have established that the payments of $500 and $700 received, totalling $1,200, by Ms Cronin were in addition to the Loan amount. There is also the question of how any such arrangement can be said to bind the defendant in any event.
The issue in relation to this ground of appeal, from a natural justice perspective, is whether Ms Cronin had been given reasonable or sufficient opportunity[46] to prepare her case by the filing of evidence so as to be given a fair or reasonable opportunity to present her case.[47]
[46] Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 [112] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel & Bell JJ).
[47] Tey [7] - [8].
On my review of the transcript, it is not evident to me that the learned magistrate prevented Ms Cronin from saying everything she wanted to say (aside from matters determined by the learned magistrate to be irrelevant and therefore not admissible). Ms Cronin had, in my view, ample opportunity to produce to the court the evidence and materials she sought to rely on, or to seek the time of the court to allow her the time. Ms Cronin did not act on this opportunity.
The fact that Ms Cronin does not like this result does not mean that she has been denied natural justice. As this court has previously noted in Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd:[48]
[T]he question of whether there has been a failure to comply with the rules of natural justice is not answered by reference to the outcome of the exercise of the relevant power. The principles of natural justice are not concerned with the merits of a particular exercise of power, but with the procedure that must be observed in its exercise. The focus of attention must therefore be on the position as it stood before the impugned decision is taken.
[48] Ogbonna v CTI Logistics Ltd [2021] WASCA 25 [26].
Ms Cronin has not satisfied me that she was denied natural justice by the learned magistrate. In my view, Ms Cronin had sufficient opportunity to present her case and has not established any denial of natural justice in the manner in which the learned magistrate allowed her to present her case or to give evidence‑in‑chief.
This ground of appeal has not been established.

Was there a denial of natural justice because the learned magistrate did not give Ms Cronin sufficient opportunity to cross examine Ms Angeles?

Ms Cronin's position as regards cross-examination, is set out in the notice of appeal and the outline of submissions, and can be summarised as follows: That the learned magistrate did not allow the appellant to properly cross‑examine the respondent regarding her debts and failure to repay the borrowed sum.

Disposition

The right to challenge by cross‑examination a witness whose evidence is adverse, in important respects, to the case a party wishes to present is an aspect of the obligation to accord natural justice. However, a magistrate has a wide discretionary power in any proceedings to contain cross‑examination within proper limits and to disallow repetitious, prolix or unnecessary questions.[49]
[49] R v Kelly; Ex parte Hoang Van Duong (1981) 28 SASR 271, 273 (King CJ with whom Zelling & Jacobs JJ agreed).
It is evident from the transcript of the hearing before the learned magistrate that Ms Cronin was given the opportunity to, and did, cross‑examine Ms Angeles and indeed Marivik Angeles. It is sufficient to cite the following examples:[50]
[50] 25 February 2025 ts 76; MB, page 248.
CRONIN, MS: Yes, your Honour. Okay. Actually, I have nothing against Jorie, because she's my favourite. Okay. But I want to ask all of this. Jorie, why did you borrow money from me, the 3000, may I ask?‑‑‑Yes, and I've already given you so many explanation even (indistinct). Yes, why you still asking for it?
CRONIN, MS: I just want to know - also I want to know, what did you do - - -
HER HONOUR: Let her answer the first question.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I've given you a clarification, even on the text message, that I need to borrow $3000. I didn't even want to borrow from you, but out of need, I just, and also we're like a family, so that's why I asked you. I borrowed money from you, it's because for the car, personal use and - and nothing related buying and selling.
…
And:[51]
[51] 25 February 2025 ts 77; MB, page 249.
CRONIN, MS: Okay. Okay. So you promised to pay it in two weeks' time, but it's now nine months, and you haven't even paid me or returned - replied to my messages. Is there any reason why?
HER HONOUR: So there are two questions there. This witness's evidence is that she has paid you $2700.
CRONIN, MS: Yes, but I explained already where the money went to.
HER HONOUR: That's what you did with the money. This witness says that she caused her mother to send the money, either orally or in writing, on her behalf to pay.
CRONIN, MS: Okay. I think that's all that I have to ask because I already explained.
HER HONOUR: Yes, but do you want to put to this witness if you had a conversation with the mother about not accepting what it was - what the receipt of the money is for?
…
Further:[52]
HER HONOUR: All right. This is your opportunity. Is there any other questions that you want to ask your witness?
CRONIN, MS: No, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Okay. Ms Cronin, this is your opportunity to cross‑examine the witness.
…
[52] 25 February 2025 ts 88; MB, page 260.

Marivik Angeles, the respondent's mother, was also cross‑examined by Ms Cronin in respect of the Loan and the $500 and $700 payments made:[53]
CRONIN, MS: Okay. Wasn't the - you told me verbally - wasn't it the 500 and the 700 that you paid me, you verbally told me that was the interest for the 3000 loan? And then after that, you said, 'I won't give you - is it okay not to give you anything any-more?'; is that correct?
INTERPRETER (WITNESS): No, your Honour, all payment for Jorie's debt.
…
[53] 25 February 2025 ts 91; MB, page 263.
In my view, the learned magistrate gave Ms Cronin considerable latitude in asking questions in cross-examination. She had ample opportunity to challenge the evidence of Ms Angeles (and Marivik Angeles) and did so.
Ms Cronin has not satisfied me that she was denied natural justice on the basis that she was not given a sufficient opportunity to cross‑examine Ms Angeles.
This ground of appeal has not been established.

Was the learned magistrate biased?

Ms Cronin's contentions as to bias and apprehended bias, as set out in the notice of appeal and the outline of submissions, concern the perceived behaviour of the learned magistrate (ie behaving harshly and unsympathetically towards Ms Cronin, while exhibiting leniency, emotional support and undue sympathy to Ms Angeles and her mother; change in tone; assisted Ms Angeles by putting 'some leading questions' to be asked by Ms Angeles).
A 'central element in the system of justice administered by our courts is that it should be fair and this means that it must be open, impartial and even-handed'.[54]
[54] Re JRL; Ex parte CJL [1986] HCA 39; (1986) 161 CLR 342, 350 (Mason J).
The test for actual bias was summarised by Newnes JA in Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia:[55]
Where a party contends that actual bias exists, the applicant must show that the mind of the decision-maker is so committed to a conclusion already formed as to be incapable of alteration, whatever evidence or arguments may be presented: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507, 532 [72]. Actual bias will exist where the decision-maker has prejudged the case against the applicant, or acted with such partisanship or hostility as to show that the decision-maker had a mind made up against the applicant and was not open to persuasion in favour of the applicant: see Jia Legeng [36], [72]. Such an allegation must be 'distinctly made and clearly proved': Jia Legeng [69], [127].
[55] Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 110 [5] (Newnes JA). See also: Smart v Albuquerque [2011] WASCA 231 [9] (judgment of the court); MTI v SUL[No 2] [2012] WASCA 87 [13] (judgment of the court).
I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing on 25 February 2025, as well as Ms Cronin's observations on the transcript set out in her notice of appeal and outline of submissions. From my review of the case as a whole, Ms Cronin has not satisfied me that the learned magistrate was actually biased in the manner described in Chin. The allegation of bias certainly has not been 'clearly proven'. Rather, what occurred was that the learned magistrate, correctly, sought to confine the evidence to the issues in dispute. She then sought to engage with Ms Angeles to seek to understand the issues from her perspective.
To establish that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, the appellant would need to point to what it was that led the magistrate to decide the case other than on its factual or legal merits. He would then need to identify the connection between the evidence of apprehended bias and how that caused the tribunal to deviate from deciding the case on the merits.[56]
[56] Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 [8].
In judging whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, it should be assumed that the lay observer would base his or her opinion on a fair assessment of the judicial officer's conduct in the context of the trial as a whole.[57]
[57] De Alwis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 42 [70] (McLure P, with whom Buss & Mazza JJA agreed) (De Alwis [No 2]).
As McLure P observed in De Alwis [No 2], in the context of dealing with an assertion of bias, it 'will often be necessary with a self‑represented litigant for a trial judge to intervene in order to stop irrelevant matters being raised and to prevent unnecessary delays or disruptions'.[58] That is in part what occurred in the present hearing. The fact that the learned magistrate made rulings against Ms Cronin does not provide a basis for a reasonable apprehension that the learned magistrate did not bring an impartial or unprejudiced mind to bear on those matters and other matters.[59]
[58] De Alwis [No 2] [71].
[59] MTI v SUL [No 2] [14].
From my review of the case as a whole, I do not consider that a 'fair‑minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend' that the learned magistrate had not brought an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the issues the magistrate had to decide. Rather, as I said in relation to actual bias, it would have been apparent to a fair‑minded lay observer that the learned magistrate was trying to confine the evidence to the issues in dispute, and then to engage with Ms Cronin to seek to understand the issues from her perspective. There is no arguable basis in the manner in which the learned magistrate conducted the trial for an allegation of apprehended bias.
Ms Cronin has not satisfied me that there has been a denial of natural justice on the basis that the magistrate acted with actual or apparent bias.
This ground of appeal has not been established.

Conclusion

For the reasons which I have set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.
Costs would ordinarily follow the event.[60] However, as Ms Angeles elected to take no part in the appeal, the appropriate order is that there be no order as to costs.
[60] District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA) s 64; Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 66 r 1(1).

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.
MO
Associate
17 SEPTEMBER 2025