Hodder v Public Transport Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read

HODDER -v- PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [2010] WASCA 1



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2010] WASCA 1
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)15/01/2010
Case No:CACR:137/200922 DECEMBER 2009
Coram:WHEELER JA
PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA
22/12/09
5Judgment 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
HEARD : 22 DECEMBER 2009 DELIVERED : 22 DECEMBER 2009 PUBLISHED : 15 JANUARY 2010 FILE NO/S : CACR 137 of 2009 BETWEEN : JAMES LESLIE HODDER
    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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2010] WASCA 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hodder v Public Transport Authority involved the claimant, Hodder, challenging a decision made by the Public Transport Authority. The dispute centred on the authority's refusal to provide certain accommodations for Hodder's disability, which Hodder argued was discriminatory and a breach of their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

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.