Hansson v Johar

[2025] WASC 425

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION:   HANSSON -v- JOHAR [2025] WASC 425

CORAM:   GETHING J

HEARD:   1 OCTOBER 2025

DELIVERED          :   6 OCTOBER 2025

FILE NO/S:   CIV 2125 of 2025

BETWEEN:   Noriko HANSSON

Plaintiff

AND

Alisya JOHAR

First Defendant

Matthew SAXON

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Whether the Supreme Court has the power to stay a decision of the Magistrates Court on appeal to the District Court

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) s 15
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36

Result:

Application dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In Person
First Defendant	:	In Person
Second Defendant	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	In Person
First Defendant	:	In Person
Second Defendant	:	In Person

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

Miles v Campus Living Villages Murdoch Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 350

Sawitri v Robson [2019] WASC 82

Snook v Department of Housing [2025] WASC 84

GETHING J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 1 October 2025 and has been edited to correct grammar and infelicities of language and to include full references to relevant evidence and authorities).

1. The applicant, Noriko Hansson, has applied for an injunction to restrain her neighbours, Alisya Johar and Matthew Saxon, from commencing construction of a dividing fence on their adjoining properties in Mount Hawthorn.  Ms Hansson is in court before me.  Ms Johar and Mr Saxon are on an audio link.  The works are to be undertaken in accordance with a decision of the Magistrates Court on 10 September 2025 (Magistrates Court Order). 

2. Ms Hansson has appealed the Magistrates Court Order to the District Court, filing her notice of appeal on 30 September 2025.  This is within the statutory period for the commencement of an appeal.  The District Court has appellate jurisdiction in relation to the appeal from the Magistrates Court Order.  The information before the court is that Ms Johar and Mr Saxon are scheduled to commence demolition of the existing dividing fence and construction of a new one tomorrow morning, 2 October 2025.  Ms Hansson has been advised by the District Court that it could not grant an urgent stay of the Magistrates Court Order.  She was advised to seek a stay in the Supreme Court.

3. The problem for Ms Hansson is that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to stay this particular order of the Magistrates Court.  The power of the Supreme Court to grant an injunction is usually dependent on there being an existing cause of action against the defendant arising out of an invasion, actual or threatened, of a legal or equitable right.[1]  Here there is not. 

   [1] Miles v Campus Living Villages Murdoch Pty Ltd [2015] WASC 350 [24] – [25] (Miles) (Pritchard J).

4. There is a power in the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (CJEA) s 15 to suspend enforcement of a judgment of the Magistrates Court. However, this power is only able to be exercised by the Magistrates Court or the District Court on an appeal.[2]  The Supreme Court has no power in its original jurisdiction to make a suspension order in relation to a judgment of the Magistrates Court.[3]

   [2] CJEA s 15(1).

   [3] Miles [27].

5. I add that if there had been an application for judicial review of the Magistrates Court Order pursuant to Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36, then the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to grant an injunction to preserve the status quo pending determination of the application.[4]   Again, that is not the present case.  By contrast, the District Court is given the express power to stay execution of any order the subject of appeal.[5]  So, regrettably, the advice given by the District Court to Ms Hansson was incorrect.

   [4] Miles [31]; Snookv Department of Housing[2025] WASC 84 [45] (Lundberg J); Sawitri v Robson [2019] WASC 82 [24] (Fiannaca J).

   [5] District Court Rules 2005 (WA) r 57(2)(a).

6. As the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to grant the injunction sought, the application will be dismissed.  As no party is represented, there will be no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

OB

Associate to the Hon Justice Gething

6 OCTOBER 2025