Laughton v Marsh - [2018] WADC 172

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   LAUGHTON -v- MARSH [2018] WADC 172
CORAM:   STEVENSON DCJ
HEARD:   21 NOVEMBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   Ex tempore
PUBLISHED           :   11 DECEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   APP BUN 1 of 2017
BETWEEN:   ANDREW LAUGHTON
Appellant

AND

SHARYL MARSH
First Respondent

JAMES GLYNN MARSH
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE PONTIFEX
File Number             :   BUN/GCLM/316 of 2015

Catchwords:

Civil procedure - Practice and procedure - Appeal from registrar's order - Litigant in person - Non-compliance with order to pay security for costs - Dismissal of proceedings

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 15, r 61

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Appellant pay respondent's costs

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	Mr I Morison
Second Respondent	:	Mr I Morison

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
First Respondent	:	Morison Legal
Second Respondent	:	Morison Legal

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

Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87

STEVENSON DCJ: [This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 21 November 2018 and edited from the transcript.]

I have had the opportunity to consider in full every document that has been filed in this court since the inception of the substantive appeal itself by the appellant (Mr Laughton), by his appeal notice filed on 23 January 2017.
The appeal notice seeks to appeal from a decision made in the Magistrates Court at Bunbury on 17 August 2016. The appeal itself, like almost every other step in these proceedings, is out of time and Mr Laughton requires leave to extend time.
The respondents are represented by Mr Morison. The respondents have filed a notice of intention to appear to the substantive appeal.
Before I deal with the extended interlocutory history of the matter, I will go straight to the purpose of the hearing today. It is concerned with an appeal notice originally filed by Mr Laughton on 6 July 2018 and subsequently purported to be amended by a further appeal notice filed on 2 November 2018. The first appeal notice I will refer to as the 'original appeal notice'. The second appeal notice I will refer to as the 'amended appeal notice'.
The reason for this appeal is because on 30 October 2017, Principal Registrar Melville made an order that Mr Laughton within 28 days pay $13,000 into court by way of security for costs, and that in the meantime all further proceedings be stayed. The order was pronounced when Principal Registrar Melville delivered his reasons for decision in writing on 30 October 2017. At that time, both Mr Morison and Mr Laughton were present.
It follows that Mr Laughton was informed and fully cognisant of the requirement of the order that he pay into this court the sum of $13,000 as security for the respondents' costs as a condition precedent to the continuation of these proceedings. To date Mr Laughton has not complied with that order. No appeal was lodged against Principal Registrar…

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 Laughton v Marsh

Details

AGLC: Laughton v Marsh [2018] WADC 172
Case: [2018] WADC 172
Decision Date: 21 NOVEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Laughton v Marsh, the respondent sought to dismiss the appellant's proceedings on the grounds of non-compliance with an order to pay security for costs. The appellant, a litigant in person, had been ordered to pay a sum of money as security for the respondent's costs if the proceedings were dismissed. The appellant failed to comply with this order, leading to the respondent's application to dismiss the proceedings. The matter was initially heard by a registrar who found in favour of the respondent. The appellant subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the registrar was correct in upholding the respondent's application to dismiss the proceedings for non-compliance with the order for security for costs. The appellant argued that the registrar had erred in law by dismissing the proceedings without making a finding of contempt. The appellant contended that the dismissal of the proceedings should not have proceeded without a prior finding of contempt, as mandated by established case law. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the dismissal was justified based on the appellant's failure to comply with the security for costs order.

The court considered the applicable legal principles and noted that the registrar had authority to make findings of fact and law in the circumstances presented. The court found that the registrar's decision to dismiss the proceedings was consistent with the relevant statutory provisions and case law, which did not require a prior finding of contempt. The court concluded that the registrar had exercised their discretion correctly and upheld the dismissal of the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the registrar was affirmed.

In light of the findings, the court made orders that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The costs were to be paid by the appellant to the respondent, reflecting the outcome of the appeal. The court's decision underscored the importance of compliance with security for costs orders and the consequences that may arise from non-compliance.

Orders