Laurent v Armstrong - [2015] WADC 101

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: LAURENT -v- ARMSTRONG [2015] WADC 101

CORAM: STAUDE DCJ

HEARD: 30 JULY 2015

DELIVERED : 2 OCTOBER 2015

FILE NO/S: APP 1 of 2015

BETWEEN: GERALD JEAN NOEL LAURENT
Appellant
AND
CASSANDRA ARMSTRONG
BARBARA ARMSTRONG
Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE LAWRENCE
File No  :GER 328 of 2012

Catchwords:

Appeal - Appeal from summary judgment and consequential orders - Minor case claim - Jurisdictional error - Whether magistrate had jurisdiction to give summary judgment - Whether magistrate had jurisdiction to award indemnity costs - Whether magistrate had jurisdiction to order security for costs - Effect of failure to order that general procedure apply

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Procedure) Act 2004

Result:

Appeal allowed
Action remitted to be dealt with in accordance with the minor case procedure

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondents : Mr R Arndt

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Respondents : Ryan Arndt Barrister and Solicitor

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

Christou v Stanton Partners Australasia Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 176
Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Laurent v City of Greater Geraldton [2013] WASAT 57
Re Carey; ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd (2006) 32 WAR 501
Rodwell v Hutchinson [2010] WASCA 197
Water Authority v AIL Holdings Pty Ltd [No 2] (1992) 10 WAR 235
Wise v Proprietors of Strata Plan 21513 [2009] WADC 115

STAUDE DCJ:

Introduction

In 2010 the appellant built a brick wall as a dividing fence between his property at 2 Admiral Link, Wandina, and the neighbouring property at 4 Admiral Link, then a vacant lot.
After the wall had been substantially constructed, 4 Admiral Link was purchased by the first-named respondent, Cassandra Armstrong. The appellant approached her for a contribution to the cost of the wall. When Ms Armstrong made enquiries of the local authority as to what constituted a sufficient fence for the purposes of the Dividing Fences Act 1961, it was revealed that the appellant had not obtained a building licence prior to the construction of the wall. Subsequently, the wall was found to be constructed wholly inside the neighbouring property and to otherwise be structurally defective and incomplete.
The City of Greater Geraldton (City) refused the appellant's application for a building approval certificate pursuant to s 374AA(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960. The City subsequently served a statutory notice requiring the appellant to remove the wall.
On 23 July 2012, the appellant lodged a minor case claim alleging financial loss in the amount of $9,900.00 arising from the respondents' conduct in relation to the dividing fence. He also commenced a claim pursuant to the Dividing Fences Act (GER 339 of 2012) which was later discontinued. The minor case claim (Form 4) dated 23 July 2012 contained the following description of claim:
At the direction of the defendants and upon agreement to complete work for approval regarding fence…

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 Laurent v Armstrong 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: [2015] WADC 101
Decision Date: 2 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Laurent v Armstrong involved an appeal by the respondent, Armstrong, against a summary judgment and related orders made in favour of Laurent. The matter originated as a minor claim filed by Laurent against Armstrong. Armstrong's appeal contested the magistrate's jurisdiction to grant summary judgment, to award indemnity costs, and to order security for costs. The appeal also raised the issue of whether the magistrate's failure to order that the general procedure apply affected the jurisdiction of the court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate had the requisite jurisdiction to make the orders in question. This involved an examination of the statutory framework governing the jurisdiction of magistrates in minor claims proceedings, particularly focusing on the authority to grant summary judgment, award indemnity costs, and order security for costs. Additionally, the court considered whether the magistrate's omission to order that the general procedure apply was a jurisdictional error that invalidated the orders made.

The court held that the magistrate did not have jurisdiction to grant summary judgment in a minor claim, as such a remedy was not available under the statutory provisions governing minor claims. Furthermore, the court found that the magistrate also lacked the jurisdiction to award indemnity costs and to order security for costs, as these powers were not conferred by the relevant legislation. The court emphasised that the failure to order that the general procedure apply did not affect the jurisdiction of the court, but it did highlight the magistrate's error in not following the prescribed procedural steps. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the magistrate were set aside.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeal, the setting aside of the summary judgment and consequential orders, and the direction that the matter be remitted to the original court for further proceedings in accordance with the general procedure. The court also noted that the respondent was to bear the costs of the appeal.

Orders