JAMES -v- SIEVWRIGHT [2004] WASCA 12

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 12
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	SJA:1057/2003	Heard:	12 DECEMBER 2003
Coram:	WHEELER J WALLWORK AJ	Delivered:	2/02/04
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	PAUL BRIAN JAMES JUDITH ANNE SIEVWRIGHT
Catchwords:	Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : JAMES -v- SIEVWRIGHT [2004] WASCA 12 CORAM : WHEELER J

WALLWORK AJ

HEARD : 12 DECEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 2 FEBRUARY 2004 FILE NO/S : SJA 1057 of 2003 BETWEEN : PAUL BRIAN JAMES

Applicant

AND

JUDITH ANNE SIEVWRIGHT

Respondent

Catchwords:

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr J G Kitto

Respondent : Mr B E F Tooker

Solicitors:

Applicant : Kitto & Kitto

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This was an application to renew an application for leave to appeal which was dismissed by Barker J on 18 November 2003. The leave which was sought was leave to appeal from the whole of the decision of Barker J given on 17 October 2003, by which decision his Honour dismissed the applicant's appeal from his conviction in the Court of Petty Sessions. At the hearing of the present application, we were of the view that the application should be dismissed, on the grounds that the grounds advanced as proposed grounds of appeal did not disclose an arguable case. We undertook to publish brief reasons for that decision. On reviewing the transcript it appears to us that they emerge with reasonable clarity from the exchanges with counsel during the course of that application; however, it is desirable to set out our reasons briefly and in an orderly fashion.

2 This matter has a relatively long history. The applicant was charged that on 22 December 2001 he unlawfully assaulted a Mr Owens and thereby did him bodily harm. The matter was heard in 2002. The evidence was to the effect that the applicant had bitten off a part of one of Owens' ears, and his Worship made a finding to that effect. Defences of provocation and self defence appeared to have been raised, but were rejected by his Worship on the basis that the response of the applicant was not proportionate. The applicant was convicted.

3 The applicant then successfully appealed to this Court against his conviction. In James v Sievwright [2002] WASCA 343, McKechnie J found that the learned Magistrate had failed to consider the question of whether the defence against home invasion provisions to be found in s 244 of the Criminal Code had application, and the matter was remitted to…

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 James v Sievwright

Details

AGLC: James v Sievwright [2004] WASCA 12
Case: [2004] WASCA 12
Decision Date: 2 FEBRUARY 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of James v Sievwright was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, James, sought damages from the defendant, Sievwright, for breach of contract. The dispute centred around the interpretation of a written contract which detailed the terms and conditions of a business transaction between the parties. The court had to determine whether Sievwright had breached the contract and if so, the extent of the damages James was entitled to claim.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address were the proper interpretation of the contractual terms and whether Sievwright had indeed breached those terms. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether certain actions by Sievwright constituted a breach of the contract and whether the plaintiff had suffered any damages as a result. The court also had to consider the applicability of previous case law to the present situation, given that the case turned on its own unique facts.

In its reasoning, the court closely examined the language of the contract and the circumstances under which it was executed. The court found that the actions of Sievwright did not amount to a breach of contract as defined by the terms agreed upon by the parties. It was determined that the contract was clear in its stipulations and that Sievwright had not deviated from the agreed terms in a manner that warranted a claim for damages. The court further noted that the case's resolution hinged on its unique factual context, and therefore, the outcomes of similar cases were not binding precedents.

As a result, the application by James for damages against Sievwright was dismissed. The court found that Sievwright had not breached the contract and therefore, no damages were payable to James. The court did not award any costs to either party.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.