GALVANS -v- MICROWORLD COMPUTERS PTY LTD [2016] WADC 115

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WADC 115
Published:	04/08/2016
Case No:	APP:29/2016	Heard:	29 JULY 2016
Coram:	PARRY DCJ	Delivered:	29/07/16
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	ARTURS GALVANS MICROWORLD COMPUTERS PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Appeal from Magistrates Court 'Minor case' Whether leave should be granted to permit evidence not before Magistrates Court Whether denial of natural justice
Legislation:	District Court Rules 2005 (WA) r 50(1), r 50(2), r 50(3), r 52(3) Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) s 3(1), s 26, s 32(1), s 32(2), s 32(3), s 40(4), s 40(5)
Case References:	Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148 Smith v Mandurah Auto Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 69; (2014) 86 SR (WA) 254

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GALVANS -v- MICROWORLD COMPUTERS PTY LTD [2016] WADC 115 CORAM : PARRY DCJ HEARD : 29 JULY 2016 DELIVERED : 29 JULY 2016 PUBLISHED : 4 AUGUST 2016 FILE NO/S : APP 29 of 2016 BETWEEN : ARTURS GALVANS

Appellant

AND

MICROWORLD COMPUTERS PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

For File No : APP 29 of 2016

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE MALLEY

Catchwords:

Appeal from Magistrates Court - 'Minor case' - Whether leave should be granted to permit evidence not before Magistrates Court - Whether denial of natural justice

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA) r 50(1), r 50(2), r 50(3), r 52(3)

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) s 3(1), s 26, s 32(1), s 32(2), s 32(3), s 40(4), s 40(5)

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):

Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
Smith v Mandurah Auto Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 69; (2014) 86 SR (WA) 254

PARRY DCJ

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 29 July 2016 and edited from the transcript.)

Introduction

1 Mr Arturs Galvans appeals, pursuant to s 40 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (MCCP Act), against the judgment of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia on 13 April 2016, awarding the appellant, Mr Galvans, $579 plus $106 in court fees, against the respondent, Microworld Computers WA Pty Ltd.

2 The basis of Mr Galvans' claim against Microworld, as presented by Mr Galvans in the Minor Case Form 6 filed in the Magistrates Court, and in the appeal documents before this court, is that Microworld breached its agreement with Mr Galvans made on 29 December 2015 to supply what Mr Galvans refers to as 'the latest model Toshiba laptop' by supplying 'an older laptop' and by failing to remove viruses from Mr Galvans' existing desktop personal computer.

3 In both the Magistrates Court and in this appeal, Mr Galvans claims damages…

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 Galvans v Microworld Computers Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Galvans v Microworld Computers Pty Ltd [2016] WADC 115
Case: [2016] WADC 115
Decision Date: 29 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Galvans, brought an appeal against Microworld Computers Pty Ltd in the Magistrates Court, which had classified the matter as a minor case. The primary dispute involved the denial of leave to adduce evidence that had not been presented in the Magistrates Court, as well as an alleged breach of natural justice. The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence and argued that the denial of this evidence constituted a denial of natural justice.

The court was tasked with determining whether leave should be granted to permit the introduction of evidence not previously presented, and whether the denial of this evidence constituted a breach of natural justice. The court considered whether the appeal was appropriate and whether the evidence in question was relevant and admissible.

In evaluating the appeal, the court considered the procedural fairness of the original proceedings and the relevance of the proposed new evidence. The court found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for admissibility, and that the decision to exclude it did not breach the principles of natural justice. The court held that the appeal did not present a valid ground for overturning the Magistrates Court's decision.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The court confirmed that the decision of the Magistrates Court stood and that there was no basis for allowing the introduction of additional evidence. The final order was that the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrates Court was upheld.

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.