HODDER -v- PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [2010] WASCA 1
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2010] WASCA 1 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | 15/01/2010 | ||
| Case No: | CACR:137/2009 | 22 DECEMBER 2009 | |
| Coram: | WHEELER JA PULLIN JA NEWNES JA | 22/12/09 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JAMES LESLIE HODDER PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY |
Catchwords: | Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Public Transport Authority Regulations 2003 (WA), reg 13 |
Case References: | Thompson v His Honour Judge Byrne [1998] 2 VR 274 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HODDER -v- PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [2010] WASCA 1 CORAM : WHEELER JA
- PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA
- The appellant
AND
PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : McKECHNIE J
Citation : HODDER -v- PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [2009] WASC 293
File No : SJA 1003 of 2009
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Public Transport Authority Regulations 2003 (WA), reg 13
Result:
Application for leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
The appellant : In person
Respondent : Ms L A Eddy
Solicitors:
The appellant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Thompson v His Honour Judge Byrne [1998] 2 VR 274
(Page 3)
1 WHEELER JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against an order of McKechnie J dismissing an appeal against conviction in relation to one count of causing a nuisance to persons on a facility, contrary to reg 13 of the Public Transport AuthorityRegulations 2003 (WA).
2 On 2 January 2009, the appellant was convicted after trial before Magistrate Roberts of having caused a nuisance at Midland train station and was fined $100. On 29 January 2009, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against that decision, on the ground that the evidence was unsafe and unsatisfactory as video evidence of the alleged incident was refused by Transperth when requested by the appellant. The ground asserted that this evidence would have cleared the appellant of any guilt. On 16 September 2009, McKechnie J granted the appellant leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal.
3 Three witnesses gave evidence at the appellant's trial: Ms Athanasiou, a Transit officer, Mr Vendevelde, her partner, and Mr Fimmell, a ticketing assistant. Ms Athanasiou's evidence was that, on 6 January 2008, she was on patrol at Midland train station when she heard the appellant swear in a loud voice. She informed him that if he continued, he would have to leave and he responded that she was a "fucking bitch". She radioed her partner. When her partner arrived, he asked the appellant for his personal…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hodder v Public Transport Authority 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] WASCA 1
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Public Transport Authority had contravened the Act by failing to provide reasonable adjustments for Hodder and whether the decision-making process employed by the authority was flawed. The court needed to determine the appropriate standard of review for the authority's decision and whether the authority had properly considered all relevant factors, including the Act and its obligations towards Hodder.
The court found that the authority's decision was not in breach of the Act and that the authority had properly considered all relevant factors in making its decision. The court held that the authority had provided a reasonable explanation for its decision, which was based on an assessment of the specific facts and circumstances of the case. The court also determined that the authority's decision-making process was appropriate and that there was no error in law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed
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.