GJ v AS - [2015] ACTCA 12

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	GJ v AS
Citation:	[2015] ACTCA 12
Hearing Date(s):	18 March 2015
DecisionDate:	14 April 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	That directions for preparation of the appeal be considered by the parties.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Service of documents APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Certificate of Examination – Court transcripts – Certifying that documents are as described in the index
Legislation Cited:	Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 101, 2802, 5410, 5435, 5472, 5473, 6420(c), Div 2.31 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), O 52 r 25(3) and (4)
Cases Cited:	GJ v AS [2014] ACTSC 189 GJ v AS [2015] ACTSC 66
Texts Cited:	Dictionary to the Court Procedures Rules
Parties:	GJ (Appellant) AS (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel GJ - Self Represented (Appellant) Mr S Malcolmson (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) Eaton Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	ACTCA 42 of 2014
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Penfold J Date of Decision: 11 August 2014 Case Title: GJ v AS Citation: [2014] ACTSC 189

Refshauge J:

The Appellant, GJ, has commenced an appeal against a decision made by Penfold J on 11 August 2014. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 1 September 2014.

I do not need to address the issues involved in the appeal which is, I am informed by the Registrar, listed to be heard in the May 2015 sittings of the Court of Appeal.

In her Honour’s decision, GJ v AS [2014] ACTSC 189, the question of costs was reserved and her Honour gave leave to the parties to file and serve written submissions on that question. For reasons that will become relevant below, her Honour delivered the decision on costs, GJ v AS [2015] ACTSC 66, on 18 March 2015.

On 9 December 2014, the Respondent, AS, filed a Notice of Intention to Respond. That Notice, required by r 5410 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), is required to comply with the provisions of Div 2.31 of those Rules.

One of the relevant rules is r 101 of the Court Procedures Rules which sets out some of the requirements of the contents of the Notice. These include:

(a)whether the [respondent] is represented by a solicitor; and
(b)of the [respondent] is represented by a solicitor - the name of the solicitor; and
(c)the [respondent’s] address for service ...

The Notice of Intention to Respond did not include information that AS was represented by a solicitor nor the name of a solicitor. It was to be assumed at that date that he was, therefore, not so represented.

It gave an address for service as: PO Box 36, Curtin ACT 2605. This is an acceptable address for service under the definition of “address for service” in the Dictionary to the Court Procedures Rules.

Since the draft of these reasons was prepared, a Notice of Appointment of Solicitor (Form 2.73 under r 2802 of the Court…

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 GJ v AS

Details

AGLC: GJ v AS [2015] ACTCA 12
Case: [2015] ACTCA 12
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *GJ v AS* came before Refshauge J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The case concerned an appeal where issues arose regarding the proper procedure for the preparation and certification of documents for the appeal, specifically relating to court transcripts.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the appellant had complied with the rules of court concerning the certification of documents for appeal, and in particular, the requirement to certify that court transcripts were as described in the index. The Court also considered the appropriate directions for the preparation of the appeal.

Refshauge J determined that the appellant had not adequately complied with the procedural requirements for the preparation of the appeal documents. The judge emphasised the importance of adhering to the rules of court regarding the certification of documents, noting that the appellant needed to ensure that the transcripts were properly certified as being as described in the index.

Consequently, the Court ordered that directions for the preparation of the appeal be considered by the parties, indicating that further steps were required to rectify the procedural deficiencies before the appeal could proceed.

Orders

Orders of the court

That directions for preparation of the appeal be considered by the parties.

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.