FAZIO -v- McNALLY [2014] WASCA 79
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WASCA 79 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:100/2013 | 20 FEBRUARY 2014 | |
| Coram: | PULLIN JA NEWNES JA | 16/04/14 | |
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | ARTURO FAZIO BRIAN McNALLY |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Appeal from decision of District Court dismissing appeal against decisions of Magistrates Court Grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospect of success Appeal dismissed |
Legislation: | Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), s 43(2)(g)(i) |
Case References: | Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175 British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 242 CLR 283 Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225 Fazio v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] WASCA 80 Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95 Jackson v Chrisp [2012] WASCA 158 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : FAZIO -v- McNALLY [2014] WASCA 79 CORAM : PULLIN JA
- NEWNES JA
- Appellant
AND
BRIAN McNALLY
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : STEVENSON DCJ
File No : APP 75 of 2013
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Appeal from decision of District Court dismissing appeal against decisions of Magistrates Court - Grounds of appeal have no reasonable prospect of success - Appeal dismissed
Legislation:
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), s 43(2)(g)(i)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr J F Park
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Park Linfoot Legal Solutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; (2009) 239 CLR 175
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie [2011] HCA 2; (2011) 242 CLR 283
Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 46 FCR 225
Fazio v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] WASCA 80
Flotilla Nominees Pty Ltd v Western Australian Land Authority [2003] WASC 122 (S); (2003) 28 WAR 95
Jackson v Chrisp [2012] WASCA 158
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an appeal against a decision of Stevenson DCJ in the District Court dismissing an appeal by the appellant against certain decisions of the Magistrates Court. The appeal comes before this court on a registrar's notice to attend for the following purposes:
1. to consider the appellant's application dated 4 September 2013 for, among other things, an extension of the time in which the appeal notice is to be filed…
Continue reading Fazio v McNally
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Fazio v McNally [2014] WASCA 79
- Case
- [2014] WASCA 79
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal was brought by Fazio against McNally, with the case being heard in the District Court. Fazio sought to appeal decisions made by the Magistrates Court, which were ultimately dismissed by the District Court. The basis of Fazio's appeal was the contention that the District Court had erred in law or procedure when dismissing the appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the grounds of appeal presented by Fazio had a reasonable prospect of success. This required the court to consider whether there was a substantial question of law that warranted the appeal being heard and determined.
The court examined the grounds of appeal and found that they did not present a substantial question of law. The reasoning of the court was that the appeal had been properly dismissed by the District Court as the grounds for appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The court emphasised that for an appeal to proceed, the grounds must demonstrate a significant legal issue that could potentially alter the outcome of the original decision. In this instance, the court determined that the grounds did not meet this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Given the court's determination that the grounds of appeal lacked merit, the appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs. The court's decision was clear and final, indicating that the appeal process had been correctly applied by the District Court in dismissing Fazio's attempt to challenge the Magistrates Court's decisions.
The court examined the grounds of appeal and found that they did not present a substantial question of law. The reasoning of the court was that the appeal had been properly dismissed by the District Court as the grounds for appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The court emphasised that for an appeal to proceed, the grounds must demonstrate a significant legal issue that could potentially alter the outcome of the original decision. In this instance, the court determined that the grounds did not meet this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Given the court's determination that the grounds of appeal lacked merit, the appeal was dismissed with no orders for costs. The court's decision was clear and final, indicating that the appeal process had been correctly applied by the District Court in dismissing Fazio's attempt to challenge the Magistrates Court's decisions.
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.