Deng v Managh - [2013] WADC 58

DENG -v- MANAGH [2013] WADC 58

Last Update: 29/04/2013

DENG -v- MANAGH [2013] WADC 58
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WADC 58
Published:	26/04/2013
Case No:	APP:1/2013	Heard:	24 APRIL 2013
Coram:	DERRICK DCJ	Delivered:	24/04/2013
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal struck out
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

On Appeal from:	Jurisdiction: MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram: MAGISTRATE SHARRATT File Number: RSTN 12380 of 2012, RSTN 12381 of 2012
Parties:	KY DENG JOSHUA MANAGH
Catchwords:	Appeal from Magistrates Court – Appeal against order made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) – Right to appeal – No jurisdiction to hear appeal
Legislation:	District Court Rules 2005 (WA) Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) Magistrates Court (Minor Case Procedures) Rules 2005 (WA) Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) Residential Tenancies Regulations 1989 (WA)
Case References:	Schaefer v Department of Housing [No 2] [2012] WASCA 229

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : DENG -v- MANAGH [2013] WADC 58 CORAM : DERRICK DCJ HEARD : 24 APRIL 2013 DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2013 PUBLISHED : 26 APRIL 2013 FILE NO/S : APP 1 of 2013 BETWEEN : KY DENG

Appellant

AND

JOSHUA MANAGH

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE SHARRATT

File No : RSTN 12380 of 2012, RSTN 12381 of 2012

Catchwords:

Appeal from Magistrates Court – Appeal against order made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) – Right to appeal – No jurisdiction to hear appeal

(Page 2)

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Magistrates Court (Minor Case Procedures) Rules 2005 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)
Residential Tenancies Regulations 1989 (WA)

Result:

Appeal struck out

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Not applicable

Respondent : Not applicable

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

Schaefer v Department of Housing [No 2] [2012] WASCA 229

(Page 3)

1 DERRICK DCJ: [This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the transcript.]

2 The appellant appeals against an order made by a magistrate in determining an application made by the appellant against the respondent under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) (the Act).

Background

3 The appellant is the owner of premises situated at 10 Bellport Parade in Mindarie (the premises).

4 On 15 April 2011 the appellant leased the premises to the respondent and a Mr Shane Merrick for a fixed term of 12 months (the first lease). The Standard Residential Property Lease document for the first lease was signed by the appellant, the respondent and Mr Merrick on 22 April 2011.

5 On 16 April 2012 the appellant leased the premises to the respondent, a Ms Jasmine Managh and a Mr Ross Russell for a fixed term of four weeks (the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Deng v Managh and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] WADC 58
Decision Date: 24 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deng v Managh involves an appeal against an order made by the Magistrates Court under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA). The appellant, Deng, sought to challenge a decision of the Magistrates Court which had ruled in favour of the respondent, Managh, in a dispute arising from their tenancy agreement. The dispute pertained to issues surrounding the tenancy, specifically related to alleged breaches of the tenancy agreement and the right to terminate the lease.

The legal issues that came before the court included whether the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the appellant, and if the appeal was properly filed within the required time frame. The court was required to determine if there were any grounds on which the appeal could proceed, and if the appellant had the right to appeal the decision made by the Magistrates Court.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing appeals in residential tenancy matters and found that the appeal was not filed within the appropriate period as required by the legislation. Additionally, the court determined that the appeal did not raise any arguable legal point warranting consideration and, as such, the appeal was without merit. Consequently, the court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and struck it out. No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal struck out

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.