Legal Research
Cases
Defendi v Szigligeti

Defendi v Szigligeti

Case [2019] WASCA 115 8 August 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   DEFENDI -v- SZIGLIGETI [2019] WASCA 115
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA
BEECH JA

HEARD:   25 JULY 2019
DELIVERED          :   8 AUGUST 2019
FILE NO/S:   CACV 97 of 2018
BETWEEN:   SILVANO DEFENDI
Appellant
AND
IREN SZIGLIGETI
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   GETHING DCJ
Citation: DEFENDI -v- SZIGLIGETI [2018] WADC 115
File Number             :   APP 15 of 2018

Catchwords:

Courts and magistrates - Procedural fairness - Whether magistrate obliged to permit appellant to make oral submissions in addition to written submissions

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 15

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	No appearance
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	In person

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

Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 7; (2013) 252 CLR 38
AVS Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd v Criminale [2006] NSWCA 368
Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571
Commissioner for ACT Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 587
Commissioner of Police v Tanos [1958] HCA 6; (1958) 98 CLR 383
Defendi v Szigligeti [2018] WADC 115
Forrest & Forrest Pty Ltd v the Honourable William Richard Marmion, Minister for Mines and Petroleum [2017] WASCA 153; (2017) 51 WAR 425
International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission [2009] HCA 49; (2009) 240 CLR 319
J v Lieschke [1987] HCA 4; (1987) 162 CLR 447
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550
Mijatovic v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee [2008] WASCA 115; (2005) 37 WAR 149
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ [2016] HCA 29; (2016) 259 CLR 180
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH [2015] HCA 40; (2015) 256 CLR 326
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; (2018) 359 ALR 31
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92; (2013) 45 WAR 116
Shrestha v Migration Review Tribunal [2015] FCAFC 87; (2015) 229 FCR 301
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54; (1986) 161 CLR 141
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152
Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASCA 149

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Introduction

The appellant, Mr Defendi, and the respondent, Ms Szigligeti, are the registered proprietors of adjoining land in Hovea. For over 10 years they have been in dispute over the boundary fence between their properties. This dispute has led to Mr Defendi commencing three cases against Ms Szigligeti in the Magistrates Court, as well as to an unsuccessful attempt by Mr Defendi to sue Ms Szigligeti for trespass.
On 24 January 2018, the most recent of the Magistrates Court cases was struck…

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 Defendi v Szigligeti

Details

AGLC: Defendi v Szigligeti [2019] WASCA 115
Case: [2019] WASCA 115
Decision Date: 8 AUGUST 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Defendi v Szigligeti, the appellant, Defendi, sought judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate who dismissed Defendi's application for a court order. The dispute centred around whether the magistrate was required to permit Defendi to make oral submissions in addition to the written submissions provided. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a magistrate had an obligation to allow a party to make oral submissions in addition to the written submissions already provided. The court was required to determine the extent of procedural fairness owed by a magistrate in such circumstances, particularly when the party seeking to make oral submissions had not previously indicated an intention to do so.

The court held that the magistrate was not obliged to permit oral submissions in addition to the written submissions provided. It was determined that the onus was on the party seeking to make oral submissions to demonstrate that such submissions were necessary to ensure procedural fairness. In this case, Defendi had not demonstrated that oral submissions were necessary to ensure procedural fairness. The court found that the magistrate's decision to proceed with the written submissions alone did not amount to a breach of procedural fairness. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders