Dear v Cassar - [2003] NSWLC 3

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Dear v Cassar [2003] NSWLC 3

JURISDICTION: Civil

PARTIES: Dolores Dear (Plaintiff)
Mathew Cassar (first Defendant)
Slaveo Skara (second Defendant & Third Party)

FILE NUMBER: 10491/2002

PLACE OF HEARING: Downing Centre Local Court Sydney

DATE OF DECISION:
04/12/2002

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate P S Cloran

CATCHWORDS: Civil - Arbitration

LEGISLATION CITED: Arbitration (Civil Actions) Act 1983
Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970
Arbitration (Civil Actions) Regulation 1999

CASES CITED: Csalar v Circosta (2002) NSWSC 482
In Re Tyler
ex Parte Foley (HC unrep 1/6/94)

REPRESENTATION: Ms Guarnieri for Plaintiff & mentions for first Defendant
Mr Gasic for second Defendant

ORDERS: 1. I hold that the court has no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of this matter.

Reasons for Decision

1 The plaintiff instituted proceedings against the first and second defendants as the drivers of two motor vehicles in an accident on 15th May, 1999. Proceedings were commenced on 13 August, 1999 for a total amount of $4,286.09, and at that time (being prior to 25th September, 2000, the date of commencement of the Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1999) in the General Division of the Court.

2 The matter was heard before an arbitrator on 23rd August, 2001. An application by way of Notice of Motion was made for an extension of time to file an application for a re-hearing on 12 March,.2002, presumably pursuant to Part 4 Rule 2 of the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Rules (the Rules) That motion was granted on 19th April, 2002 when the court granted a re-hearing and purported to set aside the Arbitration Orders. The matter has to be listed for hearing, however, the jurisdictional question raised by the decision of O’Keefe J. in Csalar v. Circosta [2002] NSWSC 482 has been raised and it is necessary for the Court to deal with that jurisdictional issue before setting a hearing date.

3 Section 12 of the Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act relevantly provides

12. Limits of jurisdiction

(1) Subject to this Part, a court sitting in its General Division has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions for the recovery of any debt, demand or damage (whether liquidated or unliquidated) in which the amount claimed is not more than $40,000, whether on a balance of account or after an admitted set-off or otherwise.

(3) Subject to this Part, a court sitting in its Small Claims Division has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions for the recovery of any debt, demand or damage (whether liquidated or unliquidated) in which the amount claimed is not more than $10,000, whether on a balance of account or after an admitted set-off or otherwise.

(5) Nothing in subsection (3) or (4) prevents an action under the subsection from being heard and determined by a court sitting in its General Division.

4 Prior to 25th September, 2000 the jurisdictional limit for matters in the Small Claims Division was $3,000.

5 The Courts Legislation Amendment Act 1999 (my emphasis) Schedule 6 provided as follows:

Schedule…

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 Dear v Cassar

Details

AGLC: Dear v Cassar [2003] NSWLC 3
Case: [2003] NSWLC 3
Decision Date: 04/12/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dear v Cassar involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Dear, and the defendant, Mr. Cassar, over an alleged breach of a contractual agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought to enforce a settlement agreement that was reached after a previous arbitration process. The defendant contested the enforceability of the settlement agreement, raising issues about the validity of the arbitration process and the terms of the agreement itself.

The court was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, given the existence of a prior arbitration agreement. The central legal issues were whether the arbitration clause in the original contract was valid and whether the court should enforce the settlement agreement reached through arbitration. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the dispute was within the scope of the arbitration agreement and if the arbitration process was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law.

The court found that the arbitration clause in the original contract was valid and that the arbitration process was conducted in a manner that was consistent with the law. The court held that the settlement agreement reached through arbitration was binding on both parties and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter further. The court determined that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that enforcing the settlement agreement was in line with the parties' intentions as expressed in the original contract. Consequently, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of the matter. The court's decision was based on the principle that once a valid arbitration agreement exists, the parties are generally bound by the outcome of the arbitration process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I hold that the court has no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of this matter.

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.

CITATION:	Dear v Cassar [2003] NSWLC 3
JURISDICTION:	Civil
PARTIES:	Dolores Dear (Plaintiff) Mathew Cassar (first Defendant) Slaveo Skara (second Defendant & Third Party)
FILE NUMBER:	10491/2002
PLACE OF HEARING:	Downing Centre Local Court Sydney
DATE OF DECISION:	04/12/2002
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate P S Cloran
CATCHWORDS:	Civil - Arbitration
LEGISLATION CITED:	Arbitration (Civil Actions) Act 1983 Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 Arbitration (Civil Actions) Regulation 1999
CASES CITED:	Csalar v Circosta (2002) NSWSC 482 In Re Tyler ex Parte Foley (HC unrep 1/6/94)
REPRESENTATION:	Ms Guarnieri for Plaintiff & mentions for first Defendant Mr Gasic for second Defendant
ORDERS:	1. I hold that the court has no jurisdiction to continue with the hearing of this matter.