JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: HOLLIS -v- PITT [2022] WADC 38
CORAM: LONSDALE DCJ
HEARD: 29 NOVEMBER 2021
DELIVERED : 13 MAY 2022
FILE NO/S: APP 40 of 2021
BETWEEN: STEVEN JEFFREY HOLLIS
Appellant
AND
SUZANNA PITT
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MAGISTRATE M CRAWFORD
File Number : MID/MINOR/797/2020
Catchwords:
Appeal from decision of a magistrate - Minor case claim - Whether denial of natural justice - Whether party entitled to legal representation
Legislation:
Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), s 5(3)
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), pt 4, s 3, s 26(a), s 29(3), s 29(4), s 30, s 30(1), s 30(2)(b), s 30(4)(b), s 30(4)(c), s 30(5), s 30(6), s 30(7), s 30(8), s 30(9), s 32, s 32(1)(b), s 32(2)(a), s 32(3), s 40, s 40(2), s 44(1), s 44(2), s 44(2)(d)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | Ms A D Gimisis |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Not applicable |
| Respondent | : | Hall & Wilcox |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Alvaro v Fraser & Downsborough Designers Pty Ltd (1990) 20 ALD 762
Dincer v Giancristofaro [2015] WADC 49
Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Jones v Darkan Hotel [2014] WASCA 133
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507
Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 248
Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36; (2018) 265 CLR 236
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
Re v Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92; (2013) 45 WAR 116
Stead v State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141
Van der Wal v Harris [1961] WAR 124
LONSDALE DCJ:
Introduction and overview
On 3 September 2018, the respondent crashed into a motor vehicle belonging to the appellant, causing it damage.
The respondent was insured. Following the crash, she advised the appellant of her insurer's details. For reasons which it is unnecessary to canvas, the appellant declined to deal with the insurer. Instead, the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent directly.
The appellant lodged his claim as a minor case claim pursuant to pt 4 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (the MCCP Act). The form reveals the appellant was seeking $10,000 in damages.[1]
[1] Magistrates Court File (MCF), page 46.
By the time of the hearing the appellant had already arranged for the vehicle to be repaired.[2]
[2] MCF, page 6.
In written submissions filed in advance of the hearing, the appellant outlined a claim for the actual cost of repairs. He submitted that the vehicle had unique features making an assessment of damages on the basis of its pre‑market value inappropriate.[3]
[3] MCF, pages 17 - 27; ts 64,…
Continue reading Hollis v Pitt
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hollis v Pitt [2022] WADC 38
- Case
- [2022] WADC 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine if the magistrate's denial of the appellant's request for legal representation constituted a breach of natural justice. The appellant argued that the magistrate's questioning and comments suggested a prejudgment of his familiarity with legal proceedings and an inclination to favour the other party's evidence. The court needed to assess whether these actions demonstrated actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias, which would warrant a new trial.
The court found that the magistrate's comments were not indicative of bias but rather a neutral observation about the appellant's legal knowledge. The magistrate's reasons for preferring the other party's evidence were based on the nature of the testimonies, including contradictions and the legalistic approach of the appellant's responses. The court held that the magistrate's decision did not amount to actual or apprehended bias. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The court made no further orders as the appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Actual bias can be proven where it is shown that the tribunal has prejudged the issues in the case or has acted with partisanship or hostility towards a party: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507 [36], [72]. To establish that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, the appellant would need to point to what it was that led the magistrate to decide the case other than on its factual or legal merits. He would then need to identify the connection between the evidence of apprehended bias and how that caused the tribunal to deviate from deciding the case on the merits: Ebner v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 [8]. The appellant complains that the learned magistrate's bias is apparent from the exchange where the learned magistrate asked the appellant questions concerning his familiarity with legal proceedings.[23][23] MCF, pages 63 - 64; ts 5 - ts 6. After the appellant told the learned magistrate he had been involved in a number of different legal proceedings, (albeit in other jurisdictions) the learned magistrate observed:[24][T]he more I'm feeling you might be the most knowledgeable person at the bar table when it comes to the law.[24] MCF, page 64; ts 6. In my view, the learned magistrate's comment was a dry one, but it hardly evinced any bias. The appellant also sought to rely on the learned magistrate's reasons for making adverse findings against the appellant:[25] the learned magistrate said:I am uncomfortable with Mr Hollis' evidence for a number of reasons and generally prefer the evidence of the assessor in relation to these matters. Firstly, most of his answers to questions were lengthy and sometimes contradictory. For example, when dealing with the question of whether the defendant should have a paralegal sit next to her in this matter, I inquired as to Mr Hollis' experience in court and asked him how many matters he had been a part to. Particularly when he used phrases such as 'McKenzie friend', I asked him the question.And he referred to two matters that - well, he referred, I should say, to the Family Court and the SAT without saying how many matters he was involved. And I repeated the question, and he began describing and trying to explain away the number of matters he had been involved in. The reality is he ultimately conceded that he had been involved in a large number of matters, not just in this court, but clearly from what he said, in many other jurisdictions, at least - well, certainly two other jurisdictions, namely, the Family Court and the State Administrative Tribunal.That said, he still remains a litigant in person. Secondly, even on the issue of ownership as mentioned, his answers and that of his wife were lengthy and, at times, meandering; starting with the suggestion that he was the owner, that he lost his licence from points, and then he put it in his wife's name. Then his wife was the owner of the wagon. Then they were both the owner of the wagon. Thirdly, he conceded properly that he did babble a bit.That's certainly true. His wife tried to keep him on the straight and narrow to an extent. Fourthly, his answers tended to be legalistic, for example, talking about tortious behaviour, and self-serving to an extent. Having said that, he was articulate and intelligent with his evidence. Fifthly, he could not even recall the details of the vehicles in front of him, not that that really matters. Obviously, he's not independent in this matter, being a party to the action.[25] MCF, page 161; ts 103.