Houston v MDL Corporation Pty Ltd

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: HOUSTON -v- MDL CORPORATION PTY LTD [2003] WASCA 257

CORAM: STEYTLER J
MILLER J

HEARD: 23 OCTOBER 2003

DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 2114 of 2003

BETWEEN: JANINE MARGARET HOUSTON
Applicant
AND
MDL CORPORATION PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders made in District Court - Whether test for leave satisfied - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr J R Criddle
Respondent: Ms F C E Davis

Solicitors:

Applicant: Bradford & Co
Respondent: Phillips Fox

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

Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Potter's Sulphide Ore Treatment Ltd v Sulphide Corporation Ltd (1911) 13 CLR 101

STEYTLER J: This is an application for leave to appeal against orders made by a District Court Judge in interlocutory proceedings. The applicant has brought an action against the respondent claiming damages said to have been suffered by her arising out of an accident which occurred in the respondent's hairdressing and beautician salon.
In her statement of claim the applicant pleads that, on 6 June 2001, she was present in the respondent's premises and was lying on a table. As she attempted to turn over, her right arm contacted the wall of the premises which consisted of cut glass or mirror shaped as a mural, as a result of which she suffered pain and injury in the form of a severe laceration to her right hand and an extensor tendon injury to her right index finger.
The respondent, in its defence, admits that the applicant was present in its premises on 6 June 2001 and that she was lying on a table in a room at the premises. However, it denies that the wall of the premises consisted of cut glass or mirror shaped as a mural, that the applicant's right arm contacted the wall of the premises and that the applicant suffered an injury as a result of her right arm contacting the wall.
In addition, it pleads in par 4 of its defence a general denial of the allegation that the applicant suffered pain and injury and pleads that if she did suffer the injuries particularised by her, those injuries were self‑inflicted.
It also pleads in par 5 of the defence that no part of the mural was sharp and that the table was positioned a sufficient distance from it to make it unlikely that any person could come into contact with it while lying on the table.
The action was entered for trial in December 2002. However, in February 2003, shortly prior to a pre‑trial conference which was to take place on 14 March 2003, the respondent sought leave to administer interrogatories and to issue a number of subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of documents before trial.
It seems that that application was prompted by the discovery by the applicant of medical records which disclosed that she had a history of self‑harm, agitation and psychotic episodes.
The interrogatories were directed at identifying the precise point at which the applicant's right arm or hand was said to have contacted the mural and, more contentiously for present purposes, at eliciting details of the applicant's history of self‑inflicted injury to an area below her elbows and that of any consultation by her of a psychologist or psychiatrist in respect to self‑harm, self‑inflicted injuries or psychotic episodes.
The subpoenas, the subject of the application, were directed to two doctors and to the Royal Perth Hospital and required the production of clinical notes and medical records relating to any self‑inflicted injuries suffered by the applicant from 1995 onwards.
The respondent's application came on before a Deputy Registrar of the District Court who dismissed it. The respondent appealed to a Judge of that Court who allowed the appeal and made orders giving it leave to issue the interrogatories and the subpoenas.
An examination of the transcript of the hearing before the District Court Judge discloses that his Honour formed the view that the proposed interrogatories were relevant to the matters raised in the defence and, in particular, to the plea that, if the injuries were suffered by the applicant, they were self‑inflicted. He also formed the view that it was in the interests of justice for the subpoenas to be issued.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against those orders on two grounds. The first relates to the interrogatories and contends that they were directed to matters which were not relevant to any matter at issue. The second relates to the order that leave be given to issue the subpoenas and contends that they too were not relevant to any matters in issue.
The principles applicable to an application of this kind are not in doubt. In general, the Court must be satisfied that the decision below is attended with sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave and that a substantial injustice would be done if it remains unreversed. There is a broad discretion to grant or withhold leave, and whether substantial injustice will occur depends on all the circumstances of the case, Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285 at 294.
I am not persuaded that the decision of the Court below has been shown to be clearly wrong. In my opinion, it was entirely open to the primary Judge to form the view that the interrogatories and the subpoenas were relevant to issues arising in the case and, in particular, to that pleaded in par 4 of the defence to the effect that any injuries suffered by the applicant were self‑inflicted.

I should add that it seems to me that there is no special point of importance involved in this case, as to which see Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40 at 56, 57 and 74. In all of those circumstances, I would refuse the application for leave to appeal.
MILLER J: I agree with the reasons delivered by Steytler J.

In the case of Houston v MDL Corporation Pty Ltd, the applicant, Houston, sought leave to appeal against certain interlocutory orders made by the District Court of Western Australia. The nature of the dispute revolves around the enforcement of a security interest held by MDL Corporation over certain assets of Houston, with the primary issue being whether the applicant could successfully argue for the lifting or modification of these orders. The court in this instance was the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the application for leave to appeal was lodged.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had satisfied the test for leave to appeal as outlined in relevant case law and statutory provisions. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success and whether there was a significant point of law or principle involved that warranted the intervention of the appellate court. The applicant contended that there were substantial grounds for appeal, arguing that the District Court had erred in its interpretation of the security interest and the applicable law.

In delivering the judgment, Miller J, agreeing with the reasons provided by Steytler J, found that there was no special point of importance involved in the case that would warrant the grant of leave to appeal. The court emphasised that the case did not present a significant legal issue or principle that required appellate scrutiny, as referenced in the case of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd. The court was of the view that the application for leave to appeal did not meet the necessary threshold, particularly in the absence of a substantial legal question that warranted further judicial review.

Ultimately, the court refused the application for leave to appeal, thereby upholding the interlocutory orders made by the District Court. The reasoning was grounded in the absence of any significant legal issue or principle that would justify the intervention of the appellate court in this matter. The final orders of the court confirmed the refusal of the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the interlocutory orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established