IVES -v- PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD [2013] WASCA 102

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASCA 102
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:16/2013	Heard:	19 MARCH 2013
Coram:	PULLIN JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	17/04/13
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	BENJAMIN IVES PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD
Catchwords:	Appeal Whether grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding No point of principle
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : IVES -v- PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD [2013] WASCA 102 CORAM : PULLIN JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 19 MARCH 2013 DELIVERED : 17 APRIL 2013 FILE NO/S : CACV 16 of 2013 BETWEEN : BENJAMIN IVES

Plaintiff

AND

PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MARTIN CJ

File No : CIV 1178 of 2013

Catchwords:

Appeal - Whether grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding - No point of principle

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance

Respondent : Mr E Homan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : No appearance

Respondent : Department of Commerce

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

Nil

(Page 3)

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: The appellant was required by registrar's notice to attend court on 19 March 2013 to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on grounds that none of the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding. The appellant did not make an appearance.

2 The background is that the appellant applied to the Plumbers Licensing Board (Board) for a plumbing contractor's licence. The application was dealt with by the Board on 30 January 2013. A plumbing contractor's licence was not issued. Instead, the appellant was granted a tradesperson's licence which meant that he had to work under the general direction and control of a licensed plumbing contractor.

3 The appellant then issued a notice of originating motion seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the Board's decision, and a writ of mandamus requiring the board to issue the plumbing contractor's licence.

4 The originating motion did not seek an order nisi. It sought the immediate issue of the writs. Furthermore, the grounds on which the application was made were drawn on the basis that the appellant sought a merits review in the Supreme Court. There was no allegation of want of jurisdiction or relevant error of law.

5 The matter came on for hearing before the Chief Justice on 12 February 2013. The Chief Justice dismissed the originating motion for reasons that:

(a) the State Administrative Tribunal was the only authority with jurisdiction to review the Board's decision on the merits (ts 4);

(b) the grounds were not grounds which would support the grant of prerogative relief (ts 4); and

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 Plumbers Licensing Board

Details

AGLC: IVES -v- PLUMBERS LICENSING BOARD [2013] WASCA 102
Case: [2013] WASCA 102
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in Ives v Plumbers Licensing Board was before the court where the appellant, Ives, sought to appeal a decision made by the respondent, the Plumbers Licensing Board. The dispute centred around the Board's decision to revoke Ives' plumbing licence on the basis that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Ives contended that the Board's decision was incorrect and sought to overturn it on appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding and whether there was a point of principle involved. The central issue was whether the Board's decision to revoke Ives' licence was justified and whether it was an error of law or a matter of discretion. The court noted that the Board had acted within its statutory powers and had followed the correct legal principles in making its decision. The court also found that there was no point of principle involved in the case.

The court held that the grounds of appeal did not have any reasonable prospect of succeeding. The Board's decision was based on a valid and lawful consideration of Ives' criminal record and was not an error of law or a matter of discretion. The court found that the Board had acted reasonably and in accordance with the law in revoking Ives' licence. The appeal was dismissed, and the Board's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.