JC v TH - [2025] WASC 91

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   JC -v- TH [2025] WASC 91
CORAM:   PALMER J
HEARD:   18 MARCH 2025
DELIVERED          :   18 MARCH 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2304 of 2024

EX PARTE
JC
Plaintiff by Ex Parte
AND
TH
Defendant

Catchwords:

Courts - Application to transfer proceedings from Magistrates Court to Supreme Court - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)

Result:

Originating motion dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff by Ex Parte	:	In Person
Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff by Ex Parte	:	In Person
Defendant	:	No appearance

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

Nil

PALMER J:

Introduction

By originating motion dated 1 November 2024, the plaintiff has applied for an order pursuant to s 39(4)(b) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (Magistrates Court Civil Proceedings Act) to transfer proceedings in the Magistrates Court at Albany to the Supreme Court. The proceedings concern whether a final Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO) should be granted under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) (Restraining Orders Act).
The proceedings have previously been the subject of a successful appeal to the District Court against a decision of Magistrate Scadden to make a final FVRO on 1 September 2023. On appeal, Black DCJ set aside Magistrate Scadden's decision and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court, for a re-hearing to determine whether a final FVRO should be made (before a different magistrate).
When Black DCJ delivered her reasons for decision, she told the plaintiff (who was representing himself) that the interim FVRO granted by Magistrate Scadden should be in place until there was a re-hearing.
On 23 August 2024, a directions hearing occurred in the remitted proceedings in the Magistrates Court at Albany before Magistrate O'Donnell. During that hearing, the plaintiff (who was representing himself) asked Magistrate O'Donnell whether he was now subject to an interim FVRO following the remission of the proceedings. She expressed some uncertainty but at one point said that he might not be.
On 6 September 2024, at a hearing to determine an application made by the plaintiff to vary or cancel a restraining order, Magistrate O'Donnell told the plaintiff that having considered the matter further, she considered that the effect of Black DCJ's decision was that the interim order imposed by Magistrate Scadden remained in place.
The re-hearing to determine whether a final FVRO should be made commenced on 3 December 2024 before Magistrate Young in the Magistrates Court at Albany but could not be completed on that day. The hearing is set to resume on 21 March 2025.
On 18 January 2025, the plaintiff commenced a further proceeding in the Supreme Court (CIV 1050 of 2025). In those proceedings the plaintiff seeks to address the question of whether an interim FVRO remains in place by seeking a review of a decision made in the Magistrates Court.

The factual background

The comments made…

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 JC v TH

Details

AGLC: JC v TH [2025] WASC 91
Case: [2025] WASC 91
Decision Date: 18 MARCH 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JC v TH involved a dispute where JC, the plaintiff, sought to transfer the proceedings from the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court. The underlying matter related to allegations of domestic violence and associated orders. JC argued that the case required a higher level of judicial scrutiny and that the Magistrates Court was not the appropriate forum due to the complexity and seriousness of the allegations.

The court was required to decide whether the criteria for transfer as outlined in the relevant legislation were satisfied. Specifically, it needed to consider whether the case involved issues that warranted the attention of a judge of the Supreme Court, and whether the transfer was in the interests of justice. The key legal issue was whether the Magistrates Court was an inappropriate forum for the case, given the nature and potential consequences of the allegations.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations and the appropriate forum for their determination. It concluded that the case involved complex and significant issues that warranted the attention of a judge of the Supreme Court. The court found that the Magistrates Court was not the appropriate forum and that the transfer was in the interests of justice. The application was therefore granted, and the proceedings were transferred to the Supreme Court.

Orders