Grant v Mansom - [2013] WADC 53

GRANT -v- MANSOM [2013] WADC 53

Last Update: 06/05/2013

GRANT -v- MANSOM [2013] WADC 53
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WADC 53
Case No:	APP:107/2012	Heard:	8 APRIL 2013
Coram:	DEANE DCJ	Delivered:	19/04/2013
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for extension of time in which to appeal dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

On Appeal from:	Jurisdiction: MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram: MAGISTRATE J HAWKINS File Number: CGLM 1015 of 2011
Parties:	GLEN GRANT SHARON MANSOM MICHAEL MANSOM
Catchwords:	Application for extension of time in which to appeal from a decision in the Magistrates Court Reasons for failure to file an appeal within time Prospects of success of appeal Whether prejudice to respondents if application granted
Legislation:	Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004
Case References:	Balfour v Balfour [1990] 2 KB 571 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1999) 177 CLR 472 Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1964] 3 ALL ER 933 Skerritt v O'Keefe [1999] WASCA 183 Walker v Fares Rural Co Pty Ltd [2001] WADC 94

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GRANT -v- MANSOM [2013] WADC 53 CORAM : DEANE DCJ HEARD : 8 APRIL 2013 DELIVERED : 19 APRIL 2013 FILE NO/S : APP 107 of 2012 BETWEEN : GLEN GRANT

Appellant

AND

SHARON MANSOM

First Respondent

MICHAEL MANSOM

Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE J HAWKINS

File No : CGLM 1015 of 2011

Catchwords:

Application for extension of time in which to appeal from a decision in the Magistrates Court - Reasons for failure to file an appeal within time - Prospects of success of appeal - Whether prejudice to respondents if application granted

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004

Result:

Application for extension of time in which to appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr W L Meredith

First Respondent : Mr D A Ellis

Second Respondent : Mr D A Ellis

Solicitors:

Appellant : William Llewellyn Meredith

First Respondent : Dean A Ellis

Second Respondent : Dean A Ellis

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

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1964] 3 All ER 933
Skerritt v O'Keefe [1999] WASCA 183
Walker v Fares Rural Co Pty Ltd [2001] WADC 94

(Page 3)

1 DEANE DCJ: The background to this matter is that on 11 May 2011 the appellant filed a General Procedure Claim number GCLM 1015-2011 in the Joondalup Magistrates Court. The facts relevant to a summary of the claim are that in March 2010 the appellant was awarded approximately $250,000 in compensation for injuries suffered as a result of being involved in a…

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 Grant v Mansom

Details

AGLC: Grant v Mansom [2013] WADC 53
Case: [2013] WADC 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time in which to appeal from a decision of the Magistrates Court. The appellant had filed a notice of appeal four days out of time, but later formally lodged an appeal and filed an affidavit seeking an extension of time. The appeal was based on the allegation that the respondents had borrowed monies from the appellant in the sum of $10,900 and failed to repay them. The respondents denied that they borrowed money from the appellant and claimed the payments were gifts. The magistrate dismissed the appellant's claim and he sought leave to appeal out of time. The court considered the grounds of appeal and the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, and found that the appellant had not shown that there was any reasonable excuse for the delay, nor did he show that there was a real prospect that the appeal would succeed. The application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Orders