CULLETON -v- DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD [2016] WASCA 152

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASCA 152
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:35/2016	Heard:	25 AUGUST 2016
Coram:	NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	29/08/16
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	IOANNA CULLETON DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD BALWYN NOMINEES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appeal against stay application decision Turns on own facts No basis upon which enforcement of primary judgment might properly be suspended
Legislation:	Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(i)
Case References:	Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 183 Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WADC 160 Mavaddat v HSBC Bank Australia Ltd [2015] WASCA 205 Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [2012] WASCA 168

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : CULLETON -v- DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD [2016] WASCA 152 CORAM : NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 25 AUGUST 2016 DELIVERED : 29 AUGUST 2016 FILE NO/S : CACV 35 of 2016 BETWEEN : IOANNA CULLETON

Appellant

AND

DAKIN FARMS PTY LTD

BALWYN NOMINEES PTY LTD

Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : TROY DCJ

File No : CIV 2787 of 2011

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal against stay application decision - Turns on own facts - No basis upon which enforcement of primary judgment might properly be suspended

Legislation:

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(i)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J R Reynolds

Respondents : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Nova Legal

Respondents : No appearance

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

Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 183
Dakin Farms Pty Ltd v Elite Grains Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WADC 160
Mavaddat v HSBC Bank Australia Ltd [2015] WASCA 205
Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [2012] WASCA 168

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: This matter came before the court on 25 August 2016, pursuant to a registrar's notice to attend for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(i) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Court of Appeal Rules), on the basis that none of the grounds of appeal has a reasonable prospect of succeeding. The first return date for the appellant to show cause was 19 August 2016. The matter was not heard that day, and was made returnable by further notice dated 18 August 2016, on 'Friday', 25 August 2016. Twenty five August 2016 was a Thursday, but Mr Reynolds, who appeared for the appellant at the hearing on 25 August 2016, did not contend that any difficulty was caused by the reference on the 18 August 2016 notice to the wrong day but the correct date. Mr Reynolds said,…

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 Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Culleton v Dakin Farms Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 152
Case: [2016] WASCA 152
Decision Date: 29 AUGUST 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the respondent, Dakin Farms Pty Ltd, against a decision by the primary judge to deny their application to stay the enforcement of a judgment debt owed by the appellant, Culleton. The dispute arose out of a previous contractual relationship between the parties, which had resulted in a judgment being entered in favour of Dakin Farms and against Culleton. The central issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing the application to stay the enforcement of the judgment debt.

The court considered whether the primary judge had correctly applied the principles governing the grant of a stay of execution and whether there were any grounds upon which the enforcement of the primary judgment could be properly suspended. The court examined the evidence and submissions made by both parties and assessed the relevant legal principles. Ultimately, the court found that the primary judge had not erred in dismissing the application to stay the enforcement of the judgment debt, as there was no basis upon which the enforcement of the primary judgment might properly be suspended. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, as there were no grounds upon which the decision of the primary judge could be successfully challenged.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the relevant legal principles. The court found that the primary judge had correctly considered the evidence and submissions made by both parties and had applied the appropriate legal principles in reaching their decision. The court further found that there were no grounds upon which the decision of the primary judge could be successfully challenged, and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.