Edward James Bride v Shire of Katanning

[2014] HCASL 11

EDWARD JAMES BRIDE

v

SHIRE OF KATANNING

[2014] HCASL 11
P38/2013

1. The applicant is the registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple in land in the Shire of Katanning.  He seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.  By those orders the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal from orders made by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. 

2. The respondent commenced proceedings against the applicant for the recovery of rates and service charges allegedly unpaid in respect of the applicant's land from 1984 onwards.  There were three relevant periods.  The first period was from August 1984 until February 1987.  The second period was from February 1987 until October 2005.  The third period was from October 2005 until the present. 

3. The applicant argued that he was not liable to pay the outstanding rates and service charges during any of these periods.  He claimed that in 1984, the Australian Bank Ltd ("the Bank") acted under a mortgage it held over the land and appointed receivers and managers to the property.  The applicant further claimed that the Bank took possession of the land in 1987, as mortgagee in possession, and remained so. 

4. The Supreme Court of Western Australia (Allanson J) found that the applicant was the owner of the land within the meaning of s 1.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) and was therefore liable for the unpaid rates and service charges.  The primary judge made orders in favour of the respondent.

5. In dismissing the applicant's appeal from the primary judge's orders, the Court of Appeal (Newnes and Murphy JJA and Edelman J) found that although the Bank was in possession as mortgagee of the land for a period before 2005, by 2005 the applicant was the owner of the land within the meaning of the Local Government Act and hence liable for the unpaid rates and service charges.

6. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

7. The applicant's written submissions develop no real argument in support of the application.  An appeal to this Court would have insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

8. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
12 February 2014 S.M. Crennan