JOHNSON -v- STANIFORTH & ORS [2002] WASCA 23

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 23
Case No:	FUL:9/2002	Heard:	31 JANUARY 2002
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	31/01/02
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DONALD EDWIN JOHNSON (As Executor and sole beneficiary of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 18 December 1996) WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH (As Executrix of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 23 October 1997) WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH FIONA LISA STANIFORTH (As Beneficiaries of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 23 October 1997) WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH (As Executrix and sole beneficiary of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 25 March 1998)
Catchwords:	Procedure leave to appeal against interlocutory order Meaning of interlocutory order Leave to appeal granted
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act, s 77 Rules of the Supreme Court, O 63A Supreme Court Act 1935, s 58, s 60
Case References:	BHP Petroleum (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sagasco South East Inc [2001] WASCA 159 Cameron v Cameron (1968) 12 FLR 22 Florida Investments Pty Ltd v Milstern (Holdings) Pty Ltd [1972] WAR 148 Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Ltd [2000] FCA 1572 Little v State of Victoria [1998] 4 VR 596 Metcalf v Permanent Building Society (1993) 10 WAR 145 Mickelberg v 6PR Southern Cross Radio Pty Ltd [2001] WASC 267 Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40 Carnley v Hoff [1942] Ch 298 Northumberland v Attorney-General [1905] AC 406 Perpetual Trustees Company Ltd v Fairlie Cunninghame, the Estate of Samuel Douglas Machattie Service (1993) 32 NSWLR 377

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : JOHNSON -v- STANIFORTH & ORS [2002] WASCA 23 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 31 JANUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 31 JANUARY 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 9 of 2002 MATTER : In the Estate of MICHAEL VRANJICAN (DEC)

BETWEEN : DONALD EDWIN JOHNSON (As Executor and sole beneficiary of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 18 December 1996)

Appellant

AND

WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH (As Executrix of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 23 October 1997)

First Respondent

WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH

FIONA LISA STANIFORTH (As Beneficiaries of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 23 October 1997)

Second Respondents

WINNIE KATIE STANIFORTH (As Executrix and sole beneficiary of the Will of MICHAEL VRANJICAN dated 25 March 1998)

Third Respondent

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Procedure - leave to appeal against interlocutory order - Meaning of interlocutory order - Leave to appeal granted

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act, s 77

Rules of the Supreme Court, O 63A
Supreme Court Act 1935, s 58, s 60

Result:

Application for leave to appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr K E Yin

First Respondent : Mr D G Fleming

Second Respondents : Mr D G Fleming

Third Respondent : Mr D G Fleming

Solicitors:

Appellant : Frichot & Frichot

First Respondent : Halperin Fleming Meertens

Second Respondents…

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 Johnson v Staniforth

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Staniforth [2002] WASCA 23
Case: [2002] WASCA 23
Decision Date: 31 JANUARY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Johnson v Staniforth involved a dispute between the two parties over an interlocutory order in a larger matter. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory order made by the court below, which had denied certain relief that was sought in the original proceeding.

The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term 'interlocutory order' for the purpose of determining whether leave to appeal could be granted. The applicant argued that the order in question was interlocutory and that it affected a substantial right, thereby justifying an appeal. The respondent contended that the order was not interlocutory as it did not dispose of the whole case or a substantial part of it.

The court held that the term 'interlocutory order' should be interpreted broadly to include orders that have a significant impact on the rights of the parties, even if they do not dispose of the entire case. The court further found that the order in question had a substantial impact on the applicant's rights, thus constituting an interlocutory order. Consequently, the court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the interlocutory order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal allowed

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.