Jones v Johnston [No 2] - [2020] WASC 190

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   JONES -v- JOHNSTON [No 2] [2020] WASC 190
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   15 MAY 2020
DELIVERED          :   15 MAY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   2 JUNE 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2809 of 2019
BETWEEN:   VERA LYNN JONES
Applicant
AND
HER HONOUR MAGISTRATE R JOHNSTON
First Respondent
DEBBIE DODD
Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Judicial review - Review under s 36(4) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) - Whether magistrate committed jurisdictional error - No evidence upon which magistrate could have been satisfied - Jurisdictional error established - Relief granted

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 45, s 47, s 48, s 49, s 54

Result:

Decision to extend restraining order set aside

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Ms K A Gorski
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Legal Aid - Perth
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance

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

Bindai v Armstrong [2016] WASC 341
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32; (2011) 244 CLR 144
R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd [1944] HCA 42; (1944) 69 CLR 407
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203

TOTTLE J:

Summary

On 15 May 2020 I made an order under s 36(4) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) setting aside a decision of the first respondent, a magistrate of the Magistrate's Court of Western Australia, made on 29 September 2017, to extend a violence restraining order made against the applicant under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) (the Act). These are my reasons for so doing.
On 2 April 2020 I made a review order that the first and second respondent satisfy a judge of this Court that the order made on 29 September 2017 extending the operation of restraining order CA RO 97 of 2017 for two years should not be set aside. The review order was made on the basis that the applicant had established an arguable case that the order extending the operation of the restraining order had been made without jurisdiction.[1]
[1] Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36(1)(c)(i).
The first respondent filed a notice of intention to abide. There was no appearance by the second respondent.
The factual background and the applicable statutory provisions are set out in the reasons for making the review order. For ease of reference I will repeat the relevant paragraphs of those reasons.

The facts

The following facts are drawn from the affidavit evidence filed in support of the application for the review order.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Kerry Ann Gorski affirmed 2 October 2019; Affidavit of Laura Sweetman affirmed 20 January 2019.
On 4 September 2015…

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 Jones v Johnston [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Jones v Johnston [No 2] [2020] WASC 190
Case: [2020] WASC 190
Decision Date: 2 JUNE 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v Johnston [No 2], the applicant, Jones, sought judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). The core issue in the case was whether the magistrate had committed a jurisdictional error by not being satisfied on the necessary facts to make a decision, leading to the extension of a restraining order against Johnston. The decision was challenged on the grounds that there was no evidence presented that could have satisfied the magistrate of the necessary facts, and thus, the magistrate had erred in law.

The legal issues at the heart of this case involved the interpretation and application of jurisdictional error in the context of judicial review. The central question was whether the absence of evidence to satisfy a jurisdictional fact resulted in a jurisdictional error. Additionally, the court had to determine whether, if such an error was found, the discretion to grant relief under section 36(4) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) was activated and whether any discretionary factors existed that would prevent the court from setting aside the magistrate’s decision.

The court concluded that the magistrate indeed committed a jurisdictional error by failing to be satisfied on the jurisdictional fact due to the absence of evidence. This conclusion was based on the principle that if a jurisdictional fact is not satisfied by any evidence, the decision-maker errs in law. The court further found that there were no discretionary reasons that would prevent it from setting aside the magistrate’s decision. Consequently, the court quashed the decision to extend the restraining order. This decision was in line with previous judicial interpretations and authoritative case law, which emphasised the necessity of satisfying jurisdictional facts for lawful decision-making.

The final orders of the court were to quash the decision of the magistrate to extend the restraining order, effectively nullifying the magistrate's decision and relieving Johnston of the extended restraining order. This outcome was a direct result of the jurisdictional error identified in the magistrate's proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Where a state of satisfaction is a jurisdictional fact and there is no evidence upon which the decision-maker could have achieved the necessary state of satisfaction yet a decision is made, the decision‑maker commits a jurisdictional error.[7] [7] Minister for Immigration v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [23] - [24] (Gummow ACJ & Kiefel J); R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd [1944] HCA 42; (1944) 69 CLR 407, 432 (Latham CJ). The evidence on the review order hearing was the same as it was at the hearing of the review order application. I am satisfied that there was no evidence before the first respondent on 29 September 2017 upon which she could have been satisfied that the applicant had been served with the summons. Accordingly, the first respondent committed a jurisdictional error. As a reviewable error was established under s 36(1), the discretion to grant relief under s 36(4) of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) was enlivened.[8] There were no discretionary reasons for not setting aside the order of 29 September 2017. Consequently, I made orders quashing the decision to extend the restraining order.[8] Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203 [31] (McLure JA, Buss & Newnes JJA agreeing).