Galvans v Microworld Computers Pty Ltd
[2016] WADC 115
•29 JULY 2016
GALVANS -v- MICROWORLD COMPUTERS PTY LTD [2016] WADC 115
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WADC 115 | |
| 04/08/2016 | |||
| Case No: | APP:29/2016 | 29 JULY 2016 | |
| Coram: | PARRY DCJ | 29/07/16 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 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
- 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 for these breaches of contract of $1,259, plus the court fees of $106.
4 At the hearing of the appeal today, Mr Galvans also sought to present a claim against Microworld on the basis of alleged false representation and fraud by a person called 'John' (whose surname Mr Galvans does not know) on behalf of Microworld. These are serious allegations that Mr Galvans agrees he did not raise before the Magistrates Court.
5 The Magistrates Court proceeding was heard by his Honour Magistrate Steven Malley in Fremantle on 13 April 2016. There was no appearance by Microworld.
6 In default of appearance by Microworld, his Honour entered judgment for Mr Galvans in the amount of $579, which his Honour appears to have quantified on the basis of an exchange with Mr Galvans as to the actual cost, being $550, of a replacement computer, plus the actual cost, being $30, for the removal of a virus from his desktop computer, plus awarding the court costs of $106.
Legislative framework and principles for appeal
7 The Magistrates Court proceeding is a so-called 'minor case' as that term is defined in s 26 of the MCCP Act, because it is:
a claim within the jurisdiction of the Court where -
(i) the value of the claim or of the relief claimed is not more than the minor cases jurisdictional limit; and
(ii) the claimant has elected to have the claim dealt with under the minor cases procedure;
- (see par (a) of the definition of 'minor case' in s 26 of the MCCP Act).
8 The value of Mr Galvans' claim of $1,365 is not more than the 'minor cases jurisdictional limit' of $10,000 as defined in s 3(1) of the MCCP Act. Mr Galvans elected to have the claim dealt with under the minor cases procedure under pt 4 of the MCCP Act, as he commenced the Magistrates Court proceeding by filing a document entitled 'Consumer/Trader Claim Minor Case Form 6'.
9 In Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148, Newnes JA, with whom Pullin JA agreed, said the following in relation to the minor cases procedure in the Magistrates Court [54]:
… It is evident that the minor cases procedure is intended to provide a speedy, informal and inexpensive process for the resolution of claims not exceeding $10,000. To that end, the Act provides that the court is to act with as little formality as it thinks reasonable and is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself as it thinks fit: s 29(3), (4). Unless the court otherwise directs, all proceedings are to be held in private (s 29(1)) and the parties are not entitled to legal representation (s 30). Ordinarily, the only costs allowable to a successful party are court and service fees, and the costs of enforcing a judgment: s 31.
10 Section 40(2) of the MCCP Act states as follows:
An appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court in a case that is a minor case is subject to section 32.
11 Section 32(1), (2) and (3) of the MCCP Act states as follows:
(1) Except as provided by this section, no appeal lies against -
(a) an order made by the Court in the course of proceedings in a minor case; or
(b) the judgment of the Court in a minor case.
(2) If a party to a minor case is dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court in the case then -
(a) if the Court was constituted by a magistrate - an appeal lies against the judgment under Part 7 and, subject to subsection (3), Part 7 applies to the appeal; or
(b) if the Court was not constituted by a magistrate - the party may appeal to a magistrate under and subject to the rules of court and this section.
(3) Despite Part 7 an appeal against a judgment in a minor case may only be made on the grounds -
(a) that the minor case -
(i) was not within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) was not a minor case;
or
(b) that in dealing with the minor case there was a denial of natural justice; or
(c) that the judgment was beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
13 The only possible ground of appeal, therefore, potentially open to Mr Galvans is that in dealing with the minor case there was a denial of natural justice.
14 Section 40(4) of the MCCP Act states as follows:
The District Court must decide the appeal on -
(a) the material and evidence that were before the Magistrates Court; and
(b) any other evidence that it gives leave to be admitted.
15 Rule 50(1) of the District Court Rules 2005 (WA) (DCR) states as follows:
An appeal to the Court must be by way of a reconsideration of the evidence that was before the primary court unless the parties agree otherwise.
16 Finally, in terms of the principles applicable to this appeal, Judge Derrick held in Smith v Mandurah Auto Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 69; (2014) 86 SR (WA) 254, [36] – [37]:
It is clear from s 40(4) of the [MCCP] Act and r 50(1) of the DCR that an appeal from a decision of a Magistrate to the District Court is by way of re-hearing. The ability of the court to receive and admit new evidence does not render the appeal a hearing de novo: Butler v Bennett [2007] WADC 107, 10; Hoskins v Armstrong [2008] WADC 168, 3; Regan v Gibson [2010] WADC 144, 7.
Given that appeals from a decision of a magistrate are by way of rehearing, it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate error in the court below: Cole and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 [14]. Thus the appellate powers of the court are only exercisable if the appellant demonstrates that the decision made by the magistrate the subject of the appeal is the result of some legal, factual or discretionary error: Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172 [23].
17 Therefore, in order for Mr Galvans to succeed in the appeal in this case, he must satisfy the court of two matters. First, that he has a competent ground of appeal under s 32(3) of the MCCP Act. And secondly, that the magistrate erred in respect of that ground.
Application for leave to rely on evidence not before the Magistrates Court
18 As noted earlier, s 40(4) of the MCCP Act enables leave to be granted to admit evidence that was not before the Magistrates Court. However, s 40(5) of the MCCP Act states that:
Leave may only be given under subsection (4)(b) in exceptional circumstances.
19 To similar effect, although in slightly different terms, r 50(2) and r 50(3) of the DCR state as follows:
(2) At the hearing of an appeal a party must not adduce evidence that was not adduced in the primary court except with the leave of the Court.
(3) The Court is not to grant such leave unless satisfied there are special grounds for doing so.
20 In Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd, Newnes JA said the following in relation to the term 'exceptional circumstances' [89]:
… As this court pointed out in Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255 [68], it is not helpful to attempt to describe what would constitute 'exceptional circumstances' in this context. The variety of circumstances which might arise is inexhaustible and restating the statutory test in different words would serve no useful purpose. It is sufficient to say that in this case no exceptional circumstances have been made out.
21 Mr Galvans has made an application pursuant to s 40(4)(b) of the MCCP Act and r 50(2) of the DCR for leave to adduce additional evidence in the appeal and in particular three documents which he says were not before the Magistrates Court because they were 'disallowed by the Fremantle court front desk staff'.
22 The first document is a letter from the Consumer Protection section of the Department of Commerce to Mr Galvans dated 26 February 2016 stating that the department was unable to resolve Mr Galvans' complaint against Microworld, as the company did not respond, and that the file was therefore closed.
23 The second document is a letter from Mr Michael Robinson of Red Finger Repairs to Mr Galvans, incorrectly dated 16 March 2009 but clearly written sometime in the early part of this year, referring to his repair of the laptop purchased from Microworld and stating his opinion as the differences between the amounts Mr Galvans was charged by Microworld and the actual value of what he received from Microworld.
24 The third document is a two-page printout of screenshots from a website, showing the cost of a new Toshiba laptop and service for such a laptop, which Mr Galvans explained was given to him by Mr Robinson.
25 The records of the Magistrates Court provided to this court in the appeal, pursuant to r 52(3) of the DCR, in fact include the third document referred to by Mr Galvans. It appears, as I suggested to Mr Galvans during the hearing, from the transcript of the hearing before the magistrate, that that document was in fact before the magistrate and may have been handed to him by Mr Galvans at the hearing. That appears to be the case as his Honour's calculation of damages for the computer seems to be based on that document.
26 In relation to the first and second documents, I am not satisfied that exceptional circumstances or special grounds for granting leave to rely on the documents in the appeal have been established.
27 As to the letter from the Department of Commerce, Consumer Affairs, Mr Galvans did in fact tell the magistrate at the hearing, that Consumer Affairs had been unable to contact Microworld. The magistrate was aware of that fact, although that fact would not materially contribute to resolution of the issues before the Magistrates Court.
28 As to the second document, the letter from Mr Robinson, the difference in value between what Mr Galvans was charged and what he actually got from Microworld was not the basis on which he argued the matter before the magistrate.
29 In response to the magistrate's statement:
I'm just not sure how the calculation of your damages is.
- Mr Galvans said:
I - I want the latest model Toshiba laptop which - I don't have it. (ts 5.2 - 5.3)
31 Furthermore, it appears that the $550 that the magistrate awarded to Mr Galvans for a replacement computer was based on the printout, as I have said, of the website which states that a new Toshiba Satellite laptop is within the price range $549.97 to $799.
32 Furthermore, it is clear from the transcript that the magistrate actively sought information from Mr Galvans as to the basis and calculation of his claim against Microworld.
33 If he had wished to, Mr Galvans could have in fact referred to the first two documents and in particular the letter from Mr Robinson before the magistrate in support of his claim, in the exchange with his Honour in which information was sought from Mr Galvans as to the basis and calculation of his claim.
34 However, significantly in my view, Mr Galvans was awarded damages by the Magistrates Court on the basis that he had in fact presented to the magistrate at the hearing, and in accordance with the document provided by him to the magistrate, as to the cost of a replacement laptop computer.
Disposition of the appeal
35 None of the three possible grounds of appeal in s 32(3) of the MCCP Act have been established in this case. In particular, in dealing with the minor case, the Magistrates Court did not deny Mr Galvans natural justice.
36 The applicable principles in relation to natural justice were conveniently set out in Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [57] – [59], as follows:
It is trite law that the principles of natural justice require that a party be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case. However, what is necessary to satisfy that requirement in a particular case cannot be determined in the abstract but only in the context of the case. Thus, as Brennan J pointed out in J v Lieschke (1987) 162 CLR 447, while the principles of natural justice apply to courts:
That is not to say that the content of the principles of natural justice to be applied by a court take no account of the nature of the jurisdiction to be exercised. The nature of the proceedings, the powers to be exercised and the prescribed rules of procedure may affect the extent to which a plenary right to be heard may be qualified, even in curial proceedings. (456)
See also, for example, Crown v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte The Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546, 552 - 553; Koia v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 584 - 585. The requirements of natural justice in this case are therefore to be viewed in the context of the minor case procedure of the Magistrates Court.
It is also important to bear in mind that while the appellant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to present her case, the court was not required to undertake the 'impossible task' of ensuring that the appellant took the best advantage of the opportunity: see Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323, 343.
37 Mr Galvans argued that by the Fremantle Magistrates Court front desk staff 'disallowing' the three documents that he sought to adduce in this appeal, the magistrate did not have 'full information' on three matters. First, 'faulty work done by "John" on PC and Laptop'; secondly, 'Microworld not supplying the latest model Laptop'; and thirdly, 'failure by Microworld … to respond to [Consumer Protection]'.
38 However, it is clear from the transcript that the magistrate actively sought information from Mr Galvans about the basis and calculation of his claim, and that Mr Galvans did give information, including the cost of a replacement laptop, to the magistrate.
39 Additionally, as I have said, Mr Galvans had told the magistrate that Microworld could not be contacted by Consumer Affairs.
40 At the hearing of the appeal today, Mr Galvans also said in relation to the hearing before the Magistrates Court that the hearing room was very dark, that he fumbled with his papers and could not present all of the documents that he had, and that the magistrate had confused him.
41 However, Mr Galvans did not raise any concerns about the light or the hearing process at the Magistrates Court hearing itself, and having read the transcript carefully, it is clear to me that Mr Galvans was given a fair opportunity to present his case within the context of the minor cases procedure in the Magistrates Court.
42 Mr Galvans complains that the magistrate did not really understand what was involved in the issue. However, it is clear to me from the transcript that the magistrate reasonably understood the issue as it was explained to him by Mr Galvans at that time.
43 At that time Mr Galvans sought damages from Microworld for breach of contract, and he did so on the basis that he needed a new laptop, a Toshiba laptop computer, and that that would cost, at a minimum, $550. He also sought damages from Microworld for having to have viruses removed, and was able to produce or refer to an invoice of $30.
44 On the basis of that argument and explanation and evidence, the magistrate awarded Mr Galvans what he had sought. Particularly, then, when viewed in the context of the minor cases procedure in the Magistrates Court, which as pointed out by Newnes JA in Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd at [54], is 'intended to provide a speedy, informal, and inexpensive process for resolution of claims not exceeding $10,000', in my view, Mr Galvans was given a reasonable opportunity to present his case by the magistrate and was not denied procedural fairness or natural justice. For this reason, the appeal to this court must be dismissed.
45 For completeness, and in fairness to Mr Galvans, given that he is unrepresented, I also consider that no other legal, factual or discretionary error on the part of the magistrate has been demonstrated in this appeal. While the magistrate awarded Mr Galvans $579 plus costs on the basis of the evidence presented to the magistrate as to the cost of a new replacement Toshiba laptop and removal of virus, that was the amount that was sought at that time.
46 Furthermore, although the evidence presented by Mr Galvans showed that the cost of a replacement computer fell within a range from about $550 to about $800, it was appropriate to award Mr Galvans damages at the lowest end of that range, as the evidence indicated that at least one computer was available at that price.
47 Finally, as I have said, at the hearing today, Mr Galvans sought to also present his claim against Microworld on the basis of false representation and fraud. However, no particulars in relation to such a serious allegation was presented, and that was not a basis on which the minor case was brought before the magistrate.
48 Therefore, even if the appeal had been brought on a competent ground under s 32(3) of the MCCP Act, I do not consider that any error, either legal or factual, on the part of the magistrate has been demonstrated.
Orders
49 In all of those circumstances, the orders that I make are:
(1) The application to adduce additional evidence is dismissed.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.
(3) There is no order as to costs.
13
2