Ives v Johnson - [2009] WASC 361

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: IVES -v- JOHNSON [2009] WASC 361

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 20 NOVEMBER 2009

DELIVERED : 20 NOVEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 2974 of 2009

BETWEEN: BENJAMIN WILLIAM IVES
Plaintiff
AND
MICHAEL JOHNSON
Respondent

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Review order - Whether grounds - Summons to produce - Whether Registrars must grant access to documents - Checking transcript for accuracy - Whether applicant must specify part of transcript - Early return of witness summons - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: In person
Respondent: No appearance

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

Nil

McKECHNIE J: (Edited from transcript). There are proceedings pending in the Magistrates Court, for a violence restraining order involving the present plaintiff and another person who is represented by a solicitor. I will refer to that person as the applicant. The present application is for a review order and is supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff sworn 18 November 2009.
There is no evidence that the application has yet been served, but this is an initial hearing in any event. The plaintiff seeks that a draft order prepared by him be issued against the Principal Registrar of the Magistrates Court. The draft contains a number of facts and is written in confusing legalese but seems to assume that the registry staff have failed to comply with forms requesting the release of information and have stated that the plaintiff is required to have permission of a magistrate for the access he requests, 'but this is incorrect according to the Rules and Act of the Magistrates Court'.
The plaintiff has also requested a check of accuracy of the transcripts and the registry has refused to order that be done. He wishes information be released to him.
As far as I can gather, from the papers and his discursive submissions this morning, the plaintiff raises a number of issues. It would appear that he issued a subpoena for certain medical and other records. On 11 June 2009, a magistrate heard an application by the applicant to set aside the witness summonses. The magistrate set aside two witness summonses and adjourned consideration in respect of the third witness summons issued to the applicant's psychiatrist until hearing.
Apparently, in response to letters from the plaintiff, the acting registry manager wrote to the plaintiff on 13 August 2009 outlining the position in respect of the documents. The letter deals with a number of matters by number and asserts in part that 'As at 5 June 2009 there were no subpoenaed documents on our file'. The plaintiff takes issue with that and points to statements by the applicant's solicitor to demonstrate that that was wrong. However, on the material I am simply unable to judge whether the applicant's solicitor had access to the witness summons or the documents themselves, and I note the hearing was not indeed for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ives v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Ives v Johnson [2009] WASC 361
Case: [2009] WASC 361
Decision Date: 20 NOVEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ives v Johnson, the dispute involved the applicant, Ives, seeking judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, Johnson, who was a Registrar. The crux of the matter was whether the grounds provided were sufficient for the applicant to obtain a review order. Furthermore, Ives sought a summons to produce certain documents, raising the question of whether Registrars are obligated to grant access to these documents. Additionally, the applicant wished to check the accuracy of a transcript, necessitating the consideration of whether the applicant must specify the exact part of the transcript in question. Finally, Ives sought an early return of witness summons, an issue that hinged on the unique facts of the case.

The court was tasked with determining the validity of the grounds provided for a review order, considering the requirements and standards set forth by relevant legal frameworks. It also had to assess whether the Registrar's decision to grant or deny access to documents was appropriate, taking into account the legal principles governing such access. Moreover, the court examined the procedures for checking the accuracy of a transcript, specifically whether the applicant's obligation to specify the part of the transcript in question was correctly applied. Lastly, the court considered the circumstances under which an early return of witness summons could be justified, evaluating the particular facts presented in the case.

In its reasoning, the court found that the grounds provided by Ives were insufficient to warrant a review order, as they did not meet the necessary legal standards. Regarding the summons to produce documents, the court held that Registrars are not automatically required to grant access to all documents, and the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. The court also ruled that the applicant must specify the part of the transcript they wish to check for accuracy, as this is a necessary procedural requirement. Finally, concerning the early return of witness summons, the court determined that such a request must be supported by the specific facts of the case, and the decision should be made on a discretionary basis.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a review order was dismissed due to insufficient grounds. The Registrar's decision regarding access to documents was upheld, and the applicant was required to specify the part of the transcript in question for accuracy checks. The request for an early return of witness summons was denied, as it was not supported by the unique facts of the case.

Orders