HOWLE -v- BEST [2012] WASC 62
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 62 | |
| Case No: | GDA:25/2010 | 30 MAY 2011 | |
| Coram: | SIMMONDS J | 27/02/12 | |
| 43 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WAYNE HOWLE RICHARD BEST |
Catchwords: | Building and construction Application for leave to appeal against decision of State Administrative Tribunal refusing extension of time to apply for leave to review decision of Building Disputes Tribunal Whether appeal for which leave was sought was on a question of law Whether State Administrative Tribunal erred in approaching the application for extension of time Whether evidence in the form of the transcript of the proceedings before the Building Disputes Tribunal was admissible as new evidence |
Legislation: | Builders Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 12A, s 26, s 37, s 41 Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA), s 107 Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA), s 16, s 17 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 65 r 8 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17, s 105 State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 9(a), r 10 |
Case References: | Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172 Braham and Evans [2007] WASAT 124 Braham v Evans [2008] WASC 274 Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 58 FLR 407 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27; (1998) 195 CLR 516 JR Marine Systems Pte Ltd v Wavemaster International Pty Ltd (in liq) [2011] WASCA 16 Lunt v New Resource Holdings Pty Ltd [No 3] [2011] Mickelberg v The Queen [2004] WASCA 145; (2004) 29 WAR 13 Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361 Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board v Carey [2010] WASCA 109 Rocom International Pty Ltd v Prentice [2002] FCA 604 Simonsen v Legge [2010] WASCA 238 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : HOWLE -v- BEST [2012] WASC 62 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 30 MAY 2011 DELIVERED : 27 FEBRUARY 2012 FILE NO/S : GDA 25 of 2010 BETWEEN : WAYNE HOWLE
- Applicant
AND
RICHARD BEST
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MR M SPILLANE (MEMBER)
File No : CC 1262 of 2010
Catchwords:
Building and construction - Application for leave to appeal against decision of State Administrative Tribunal refusing extension of time to apply for leave to review decision of Building Disputes Tribunal - Whether appeal for which leave was sought was on a question of law - Whether State Administrative Tribunal erred in approaching the application for extension of time - Whether evidence in the form of the transcript of the proceedings before the Building Disputes Tribunal was admissible as new evidence
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Builders Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 12A, s 26, s 37, s 41
Building Services…
Continue reading Howle v Best
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Howle v Best [2012] WASC 62
- Case
- [2012] WASC 62
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Howle v Best, the applicant, Mr Howle, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal which had refused an extension of time to apply for leave to review a decision of the Building Disputes Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the appeal for which leave was sought was on a question of law, and whether the State Administrative Tribunal had erred in its approach to the application for extension of time. Additionally, it was questioned whether the evidence provided in the form of the transcript of the proceedings before the Building Disputes Tribunal was admissible as new evidence.
The central legal issues that the court was required to address included the criteria for granting leave to appeal in cases involving statutory tribunal decisions, the principles governing the admissibility of new evidence in such appeals, and the appropriate standard of review for decisions made by the State Administrative Tribunal in relation to extensions of time. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and whether there was any error in its assessment of the applicant's evidence and arguments.
The court found that the appeal was not grounded on a question of law, but rather on a factual assessment which was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It was held that the tribunal had not erred in its approach to the application for extension of time, as it had appropriately considered the applicant's circumstances and the reasons provided for the delay. Furthermore, the court determined that the transcript of the proceedings before the Building Disputes Tribunal did not constitute new evidence, as it merely supplemented the existing record and did not introduce any new facts or arguments. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The central legal issues that the court was required to address included the criteria for granting leave to appeal in cases involving statutory tribunal decisions, the principles governing the admissibility of new evidence in such appeals, and the appropriate standard of review for decisions made by the State Administrative Tribunal in relation to extensions of time. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and whether there was any error in its assessment of the applicant's evidence and arguments.
The court found that the appeal was not grounded on a question of law, but rather on a factual assessment which was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It was held that the tribunal had not erred in its approach to the application for extension of time, as it had appropriately considered the applicant's circumstances and the reasons provided for the delay. Furthermore, the court determined that the transcript of the proceedings before the Building Disputes Tribunal did not constitute new evidence, as it merely supplemented the existing record and did not introduce any new facts or arguments. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to 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.