Halcombe v Hitchman - [2018] ACTSC 56

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Halcombe v Hitchman
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 56
Hearing Date:	5 March 2018
DecisionDate:	8 March 2018
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	The application for leave to appeal filed 13 December 2017 is refused. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Catchwords:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-GENERAL PRINCIPLES – In General and Right of Appeal – Application for leave to appeal
Legislation Cited:	ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT) ss 60 and 86 Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) Schedule 1 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37J
Cases Cited:	Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 40 Clarkson v St Vincent De Paul Samaritan Services [2016] ACTSC 235 Eastman v Commissioner for Social Housing [2011] ACTCA 12; 252 FLR 278 House v King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Parties:	Thomas Halcombe (Applicant) Darren Hitchman (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Applicant) Ms A Taylor (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Applicant) Meyer Vandenberg (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 88 of 2017
Decision under appeal:	Tribunal: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Before: President Symons Date of Decision: 16 November 2017 Case Title: Halcombe v Hitchman Court File Number: RT No 786 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

There are two matters before me: SCA 88 of 2017 and ACTCA 67 of 2017. The former is an application for leave to appeal from orders made in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘ACAT’).

ACTCA 67 of 2017 concerns an application for leave to appeal from orders made by Mossop J on 15 December 2017. I am sitting in this matter as a single judge of the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 37J of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT).

It became apparent, and the parties agreed, that the Court of Appeal matter has ceased to be of practical relevance and is bound to be dismissed. I deal with this matter formally in a separate judgment (Halcombe v Hitchman [2018] ACTCA 5).

The perils of self-representation arose in the applicant’s pursuit of proceedings SCA 88 of 2017. The applicant, a self-represented litigant, was disadvantaged by his lack of familiarity with legal technicalities and procedures. The case he came to court to present was markedly different to the case that was actually before the court. This was despite the fact the proceedings had been commenced by the applicant. The represented respondent was prejudiced as a consequence.

It is necessary to provide some background. For convenience, I will refer to the parties as the applicant and the respondent, notwithstanding that their respective titles may have been reversed in some of the ACAT proceedings.

The applicant was a tenant at the respondent’s premises in Cook. He had been a tenant for about 10 years. During 2017 issues arose between the parties which led to four separate proceedings being filed in ACAT.

The first proceeding was RT 300 of 2017, which was commenced by the respondent seeking an order allowing his managing agent access to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Halcombe v Hitchman and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] ACTSC 56
Decision Date: 8 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Halcombe v Hitchman, the appellant sought leave to appeal from a decision rendered by the trial judge in a defamation action. The respondent, who was the defendant in the original proceeding, argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to the absence of an arguable error in law or fact. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central dispute revolved around the trial judge's interpretation of certain evidence and legal principles applied in the defamation case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was an arguable error in the trial judge's determination of the defamation claim, which would warrant granting leave to appeal. The court had to consider whether the appellant had demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the appeal, taking into account the merits of the case and the likelihood of the appeal leading to a different outcome. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had erred in his application of the law, particularly in relation to the assessment of damages and the credibility of witnesses.

The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the appeal. The evidence presented in the original proceeding was carefully weighed, and the trial judge's findings were upheld as being well-reasoned and supported by the law. The court concluded that the appellant had failed to identify any significant error of law or fact that would warrant a different outcome on appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal filed 13 December 2017 is refused. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

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.