Fazio v Bedford

Case [2016] WADC 162

FAZIO -v- BEDFORD [2016] WADC 162



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2016] WADC 162
Case No:APP:7/20167 SEPTEMBER 2016
Coram:GOETZE DCJ9/12/16
PERTH
52Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:ARTURO FAZIO
SHERYN LISA BEDFORD

Catchwords:
Appeal from minor case in Magistrates Court
Alleged breach of natural justice
Apprehended bias
Turns on own facts

Legislation:
District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004

Case References:
Fazio v McNally [2014] WASCA 79
Fazio v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] WASCA 80
Goldsmith v Sandilands [2002] HCA 31
Heedes v Legal Practice Board [2005] WASCA 166
Heedes v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2008] WASCA 142
Legal Practice Board v Heedes [2004] WASC 260

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : FAZIO -v- BEDFORD [2016] WADC 162 CORAM : GOETZE DCJ HEARD : 7 SEPTEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 9 DECEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : APP 7 of 2016 BETWEEN : ARTURO FAZIO
    Appellant

    AND

    SHERYN LISA BEDFORD
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE WILSON

File No : ROC/MINOR/ 743 of 2014


Catchwords:

Appeal from minor case in Magistrates Court - Alleged breach of natural justice - Apprehended bias - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA)


Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004

Result:

Appeal dismissed


Representation:

Counsel:


    Appellant : In person
    Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

    Appellant : Not applicable
    Respondent : Not applicable


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

Fazio v McNally [2014] WASCA 79
Fazio v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] WASCA 80
Goldsmith v Sandilands [2002] HCA 31
Heedes v Legal Practice Board [2005] WASCA 166
Heedes v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2008] WASCA 142
Legal Practice Board v Heedes [2004] WASC 260
    GOETZE DCJ:




Background

1 The appellant, Mr Fazio, and the respondent, Ms Bedford, were in a relationship for some eight months from August 2013. Mr Fazio alleges that they each agreed to meet one half of their living expenses and that subsequently, Ms Bedford agreed to pay him for professional services he provided to her. Mr Fazio alleges that Ms Bedford has breached these agreements by not paying him.

2 On 9 June 2014, Mr Fazio commenced a minor case claim in the Rockingham Magistrates Court seeking reimbursement from Ms Bedford in respect of her share of living expenses paid for by him and payment for his various professional services during the relationship.

3 The claim proceeded to trial on 7 December 2015 before his Honour Magistrate S Wilson. On 8 January 2016, written reasons for decision were delivered dismissing Mr Fazio's claim. Mr Fazio now appeals that decision.




The trial

4 The trial commenced with the learned magistrate stating his understanding of the nature of the claim (ts 4 and 5). Mr Fazio does not suggest any misunderstanding of the issues at trial.

5 Given…

Continue reading Fazio v Bedford

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fazio v Bedford [2016] WADC 162
Case
[2016] WADC 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Fazio v Bedford, the appeal arose from a decision made in a minor case by the Magistrates Court. The appellant, Fazio, sought to challenge the decision on the grounds of an alleged breach of natural justice, specifically arguing that the decision-maker displayed apprehended bias. The court was required to determine whether the decision-maker's conduct was such that a reasonable observer might apprehend bias. The case turned on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, including the decision-maker's conduct and the context in which it occurred.

The court was tasked with examining whether the decision-maker's actions or words during the proceedings were such that they might reasonably be perceived as biased. This involved considering the decision-maker's impartiality and whether there was a real possibility that the decision-maker might not have acted impartially. The court needed to assess if the decision-maker's conduct fell below the standard of impartiality expected of judicial officers.

Upon review, the court found that the decision-maker's conduct did not reach the threshold of apprehended bias. The court held that while the decision-maker's comments were perhaps not the most prudent, they did not indicate any bias or partiality. The court concluded that a reasonable observer, fully informed of the facts and circumstances, would not have apprehended that the decision-maker was biased. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Magistrates Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.