D'ADAMO -v- MARCHESI [2007] WASC 282
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASC 282 | |
| Case No: | SJA:1062/2007 | 19 OCTOBER 2007 | |
| Coram: | HASLUCK J | 22/11/07 | |
| 27 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Order that appeal was validly instituted Non-party to pay respondent's costs of appeal to be taxed if not agreed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID D'ADAMO RODNEY ANTHONY MARCHESI |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Jurisdiction, practice and procedure Extradition warrant Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) Whether review of magistrate's decision as to invalidity of warrant was properly instituted by appeal pursuant to the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) Appellant discontinued appeal prior to hearing Dispute as to costs of proposed appeal and proceedings at first instance Whether court can make an award of indemnity costs Whether costs order against non-party to appeal appropriate Finding that a review of the magistrate's decision by way of appeal was properly instituted Order for non-party to pay respondent's costs in respect of the appeal only |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 6, s 7, s 9, s 14(1)(h), s 40(1)(l), s 40(1)(m), s 41(1)(e) Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 128(2), s 128(3) Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 (WA), r 58(1), r 65, r 72, r 72(4), r 77 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1991 (WA), s 10(1), s 10(2), s 11, s 14, s 17, s 20 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), s 71AA Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 WA, s 6, s 25, s 25(2), s 25(3), s 25(7) Magistrates Court Act 1989 (Vic), s 28(1), s 28(5) Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 4 Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 33(2) Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), s 82, s 83(8), s 83(10), s 86, s 86(1), s 86(4) Supreme Court Act 1937 (WA), s 37 |
Case References: | Aston v Irvine, Jenkins & Conway (1955) 92 CLR 353 Elliott v The Queen; Blessington v The Queen [2007] HCA 51 Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431 Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 178 Loveridge v Commissioner of Police for South Australia (2004) 146 A Crim R 84; [2004] SASC 195 Money Tree Management Services Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner for Taxation (No 2) [2000] SASC 63 Moyes v J & L Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] SASC 261 R v Murphy (1985) 158 CLR 596 Re Malley SM; Ex parte Gardner [2001] WASCA 83 Re Talk Finance and Insurance Services Pty Ltd [1994] 1 Qd R 558 Western Australia v Marchesi (2005) 30 WAR 359; [2005] WASCA 133 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
RODNEY ANTHONY MARCHESI
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :
Continue reading D'Adamo v Marchesi
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- D'Adamo v Marchesi [2007] WASC 282
- Case
- [2007] WASC 282
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of D'Adamo v Marchesi was heard by the Western Australian Court of Appeal. The appellant, D'Adamo, sought to appeal a decision of a magistrate that an extradition warrant was invalid. The primary issue before the court was whether the review of the magistrate's decision was properly instituted by way of appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act 2004. A secondary issue was whether the court could make an order for indemnity costs against a non-party to the appeal. The appellant discontinued the appeal prior to its hearing, leaving unresolved the dispute as to the costs of the proposed appeal and the proceedings at first instance.
The court found that the appeal was properly instituted as it provided a review of the magistrate's decision. The court noted that the appeal was not a nullity despite the appellant discontinuing it prior to the hearing. Regarding the costs, the court held that an award of indemnity costs was appropriate in the circumstances, and that it was not limited to parties to the appeal. The court made an order that the non-party was to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The non-party was given the opportunity to tax the costs if they could not agree on the amount.
In summary, the court held that the appeal was validly instituted and that the non-party to the appeal was liable for the respondent's costs in respect of the appeal only. The non-party was given the opportunity to tax the costs if they could not agree on the amount. This decision provides clarity on the proper procedure for reviewing a magistrate's decision regarding an extradition warrant and the circumstances in which a non-party to an appeal may be liable for costs.
The court found that the appeal was properly instituted as it provided a review of the magistrate's decision. The court noted that the appeal was not a nullity despite the appellant discontinuing it prior to the hearing. Regarding the costs, the court held that an award of indemnity costs was appropriate in the circumstances, and that it was not limited to parties to the appeal. The court made an order that the non-party was to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. The non-party was given the opportunity to tax the costs if they could not agree on the amount.
In summary, the court held that the appeal was validly instituted and that the non-party to the appeal was liable for the respondent's costs in respect of the appeal only. The non-party was given the opportunity to tax the costs if they could not agree on the amount. This decision provides clarity on the proper procedure for reviewing a magistrate's decision regarding an extradition warrant and the circumstances in which a non-party to an appeal may be liable for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order that appeal was validly instituted
Non-party to pay respondent's costs of appeal to be taxed if not agreed
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.