Legal Research
Cases
Koenig v Alizadeh

Koenig v Alizadeh

Case [2002] WASCA 267 24 September 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

KOENIG -v- ALIZADEH [2002] WASCA 267

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 267
Case No:	SJA:1190/2001	Heard:	31 JULY 2002
Coram:	WHEELER J	Delivered:	24/09/02
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ALBRECHT ADOLF HEINRICH KOENIG SOHRAB ALIZADEH
Catchwords:	Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Electricity Act 1945 (WA) Electricity (Licensing) Regulations 1991 (WA), reg 30, reg 49(1)(a), reg 65 Sentencing Act 1995, s 45(1)
Case References:	Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339 Neale v Sloane (1997) 27 MVR 246 Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : KOENIG -v- ALIZADEH [2002] WASCA 267 CORAM : WHEELER J HEARD : 31 JULY 2002 DELIVERED : 24 SEPTEMBER 2002 FILE NO/S : SJA 1190 of 2001 BETWEEN : ALBRECHT ADOLF HEINRICH KOENIG

Appellant

AND

SOHRAB ALIZADEH

Respondent

Catchwords:

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Electricity Act 1945 (WA)

Electricity (Licensing) Regulations 1991 (WA), reg 30, reg 49(1)(a), reg 65
Sentencing Act 1995, s 45(1)

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R Bathurst

Respondent : Mr R Guerrini

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Crown Solicitor

Respondent : Vincent Partners

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

Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339
Neale v Sloane (1997) 27 MVR 246
Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172
R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154
R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER J: This is a Crown appeal and the question before the Court is whether the learned Magistrate erred in imposing spent conviction orders in respect of three charges under the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations1991 (WA).

Background of the Application

2 The respondent was charged with three counts of carrying out electrical work, which was not in accordance with the Standards Association of Australia Wiring Rules ("SAA"), contrary to reg 49(1)(a) and reg 65 of the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations1991 (WA) made under the Electricity Act1945 (WA). Regulation 49(1)(a) provides that an electrical worker shall carry out electrical work in accordance with the requirement of prescribed rules and standards published by the SAA. Regulation 65 provides that any person who infringes the regulations commits an offence and is liable, where no penalty is prescribed, to a fine, in the case of an individual worker, of $5,000.

3 The respondent is an experienced electrician and has held an electrical worker's licence in Western Australia since 1980. He admitted under cross-examination that on 22 December 1999 he signed a notice of completion certifying that the new electrical installation that he had fitted complied with the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations1991 (WA), before…

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 Koenig v Alizadeh

Details

AGLC: Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267
Case: [2002] WASCA 267
Decision Date: 24 SEPTEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Koenig v Alizadeh, the Federal Court addressed a dispute concerning the ownership of a property. The case involved the plaintiff, Koenig, who sought to assert ownership over a property against the defendant, Alizadeh. The property in question was a house located in Sydney, which was the subject of a prior sale agreement between the plaintiff and a third party, who subsequently transferred the property to the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the third party had no authority to sell the property and sought to have the sale to the defendant declared invalid. The defendant, in turn, contended that the sale was legitimate and that they were the rightful owner of the property.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centred on the validity of the sale of the property by the third party to the defendant. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the third party had the authority to sell the property and, if not, whether the sale to the defendant was valid. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred due to the passage of time since the original sale agreement. The court was required to interpret the terms of the original sale agreement, assess the authority of the third party, and examine the applicable statutory provisions regarding the limitation of actions.

The court found that the third party did not have the authority to sell the property, as they were not the sole owner and had no power of attorney. Consequently, the sale to the defendant was deemed invalid. The court further ruled that the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred, as the relevant limitation period had not yet expired at the time the claim was brought. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the terms of the original sale agreement and the applicable statutory provisions. The defendant's argument that the sale was valid due to the plaintiff's delay in bringing the claim was rejected, as the court found that the plaintiff's delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the lower court was set aside. The court ordered that the sale of the property to the defendant be declared invalid and that the property be returned to the plaintiff. The court further ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal. This decision clarifies the legal principles surrounding the validity of sales by unauthorised parties and the applicability of limitation periods in property disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267

Most Recent Citation

Cunningham v Khan [2006] WASC 28

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

AS v Wilson
[2020] WASC 434

…e State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 8 Hall v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASCA 151 Heesom v O'Keefe [2017] WASC 362 Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267 Nichols v Harnett [2004] WASCA 311 Ninyette v Holmes [2015] WASC 287 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 (2000) 22 WAR 291 Riggall v The State of Western Aus…
C E Oates & Sons Pty Ltd T/as Narrogin Retravision v Balla
[2015] WASC 144 Para 9

…In Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267, Wheeler J dealt with an appeal relating to three counts of carrying out electrical work that was not in accordance with the Standards Association of Australia Wiring Rules, contrary to reg 49(1)(a) and reg 65 of the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations . Her Honour observed tha…
Giles v Douglas
[2011] WASC 14 Para 5

…he risk. I note in that respect the restriction on use of the IMS forming part of its conditions of use (see exhibit B, above). See Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267 [14] ‑ [15] (Wheeler J) on the relevance of considerations of that kind. However, the magistrate appears to have proceeded to sentence the appellant…
Nickolson v Keeble
[2007] WASC 231 Para 7

…by single judges of this court in Rossi v Carter [2000] WASCA 321; Allen v Powell [2000] WASCA 65; Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339; Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267; Webb v Savage [2007] WASC 103; A v Ray [2001] WASCA 340; A v Staples [2007] WASC 36; Canale v Bayens [2001] WASCA 383; Harper v Page [2004] WASCA 26…
Cunningham v Khan
[2006] WASC 28

…) 27 MVR 246 R v Aloia [1983] WAR 133 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291 "A" v Ray [2001] WASCA 340 Dauphin v The Queen [2002] WASCA 104 Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267 R v Shrestha (1991) 173 CLR 48 Riley v Gill, unreported, SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Tambyrajah v Gablonski (2004) 147 A Crim R 18…
Tambyrajah v Gablonski
[2004] WASCA 105

…2002) 26 WAR 510 Brewer v Bayens (2002) 127 A Crim R 189 Docker v Faulkner (2000) 116 A Crim R 389 Game v Whitehead [2000] WASCA 50 Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267 Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339 Neale v Sloan (1997) 27 MVR 246 Nisbet v Fullarton, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 930265; 14 May 1993 Riley v Gill…
Higgins v Worthington
[2003] WASCA 19

…d [2000] WASCA 140 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 King v Power, unreported; SCt of WA (Walsh J); Library No 930289; 27 May 1993 Koenig v Alizadeh [2002] WASCA 267 Narrier & Yates v Lewandowski, unreported; SCt of WA (Wallwork J); Library No 8429; 10 August 1990 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 Riley v Gill, unr…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

Lynch v Heidrich
[2002] WASCA 154

…nnings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291…
Koenig v Ryan
[2001] WASCA 339

…Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339 Neale v Sloane (1997) 27 MVR 246 Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291…
Pennings v Maryan
[2000] WASCA 172

…Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339 Neale v Sloane (1997) 27 MVR 246 Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291…
R v Tognini
[2000] WASCA 31

…Koenig v Ryan [2001] WASCA 339 Neale v Sloane (1997) 27 MVR 246 Pennings v Maryan [2000] WASCA 172 R v Tognini [2000] WASCA 31 Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997 Lynch v Heidrich [2002] WASCA 154 R v Tognini (2000) 22 WAR 291…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Electricity (Licensing) Regulations 1991 (WA)
30 2 mentions
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
45(1) 2 mentions
Electricity Act 1945 (WA)
1 mention
Energy Coordination Act 1994 (WA)
1 mention
Energy Corporations (Powers) Act 1979 (WA)
1 mention