Lamp v Americold Australia Pty Ltd - [2018] WADC 52

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   LAMP -v- AMERICOLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2018] WADC 52
CORAM:   JUDGE DAVIS
HEARD:   16 & 20 APRIL 2018
DELIVERED          :   1 MAY 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 4265 of 2016
BETWEEN:   PAUL MICHAEL LAMP
Plaintiff

AND

AMERICOLD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
First Defendant

AMERICOLD LOGISTICS LTD
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal from registrar's decision to dismiss application to remove plaintiff's case from the Inactive Cases List - Application to extend the validity of the writ - Exercise of discretion

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005, r 44F
Supreme Court Rules 1971, O 7 r 1

Result:

Appeal allowed
Validity of writ extended
Case removed from Inactive Cases List

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr MP Hawkins
First Defendant	:	No Appearance
Second Defendant	:	No Appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
First Defendant	:	No Appearance
Second Defendant	:	No Appearance

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

Belendaine Pty Ltd v Primary Consulting Services Pty Ltd [2014] WADC 74
Bell Group NV (in liq) v Aspinall (1998) 19 WAR 561
Brealey v Board of Management Royal Perth Hospital (1999) 21 WAR 79
Brown v Coccaro (1993) 10 WAR 391
Chalmers & Partners v Kensit [2008] WASCA 122
EMS Holdings Pty Ltd v International Shipyards Pty Ltd (Unreported; WASC; Library No 980655; 12 November 1998)
Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Hi-Tech Demolition Co Pty Ltd v Mainline Demolitions [2000] WASCA 342
Lashanksy v Legal Practice Board [No 2] [2010] WASC 159
Monteleone v The Owners of the Old Soap Factory [2007] WASCA 79
ODG Properties (WA) Pty Ltd v Middler Nominees Pty Ltd [1990] WAR 235
Skahill v Kestral Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] WASCA 185
Vanguard Press Pty Ltd v Baxter (1995) 14 SR (WA) 190

JUDGE DAVIS:

This appeal has been brought, ex parte, from a decision of Deputy Registrar Hewitt made on 18 January 2018 to refuse the plaintiff's application pursuant to r 44F of the District Court Rules 2005 (DCR) to have this case taken off the court's Inactive Cases List.
The writ was issued on 18 November 2016. It was not served, so nothing was done in the action.
By notice dated 20 November 2017 the court advised the plaintiff's solicitors that the matter was now in the Inactive Cases List. Very soon after this, on 12 December 2017, the plaintiff's solicitors filed the application for an order that the case be taken off the Inactive Cases List.
When the deputy registrar refused the plaintiff's application, no written reasons for the decision were given, although the plaintiff's solicitors have advised that the deputy registrar made it clear he was not convinced that the matter would be conducted in a timely way, as the time for service of the writ had passed.
The appeal was filed on 24 January 2018 and as part of the appeal the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lamp v Americold Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] WADC 52
Decision Date: 1 MAY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lamp versus Americold Australia Pty Ltd, the court was tasked with evaluating an appeal from a registrar's decision to dismiss an application to remove a plaintiff's case from the Inactive Cases List. The plaintiff sought to extend the validity of the writ, which was set to expire. The court had to decide whether the registrar had exercised the appropriate discretion in declining the plaintiff's application to have the case removed from the inactive status and whether the writ's validity should be extended. The legal issues at hand revolved around the interpretation and application of the relevant rules of court concerning inactive cases and the extension of writs.

The court examined the registrar's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's application, focusing on whether the registrar had correctly applied the principles guiding the removal of cases from the Inactive Cases List and the extension of writs. The court also considered the procedural fairness and the appropriateness of the registrar's exercise of discretion. The plaintiff argued that the case should be removed from the inactive status due to ongoing negotiations and the potential for a settlement. The court weighed the plaintiff's arguments against the procedural requirements and the principles of justice and fairness.

The court concluded that the registrar had exercised the discretion appropriately in dismissing the plaintiff's application. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a compelling reason for the case to be removed from the inactive status or for the writ to be extended beyond its expiration date. The court held that the registrar's decision was consistent with the relevant rules and principles. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's application to extend the writ's validity was rejected. The case remained on the Inactive Cases List, and the writ was not extended.

Orders