Law v Gannaway
[2012] WASCA 237
•19 NOVEMBER 2012
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: LAW -v- GANNAWAY [2012] WASCA 237
CORAM: PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA
HEARD: 9 NOVEMBER 2012
DELIVERED : 9 NOVEMBER 2012
PUBLISHED : 19 NOVEMBER 2012
FILE NO/S: CACV 5 of 2012
BETWEEN: MAURICE FREDERICK LAW
Appellant
AND
MICHELE GANNAWAY As Administrator of the Estate of NANCY CLOONAN HALL
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram :O'NEAL DCJ
File No :CIV 2509 of 2002
Catchwords:
Appeal - Whether any of the grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding
Legislation:
Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr C P Stokes
Solicitors:
Appellant: In person
Respondent: Chris Stokes & Associates
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
REASONS OF THE COURT: This appeal was listed for hearing by the registrar for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of succeeding. Rule 43(2)(g)(i) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) authorised the court to dismiss the appeal in those circumstances. The appeal was dismissed with reasons to follow. These are the reasons.
The appeal was against an order dated 16 January 2012 made by Judge O'Neal in the District Court. By that order, the judge dismissed the appellant's application for a suspension order in relation to two earlier costs orders. The application was made pursuant to pt 3 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA). The first costs order was made by Deputy Registrar Hewitt on 13 October 2009 and the second costs order was made by Judge Sweeney on 8 November 2011.
The transcript of the proceedings before Judge O'Neal reveals a little more of the background. 'A long time ago' the appellant commenced an action and obtained a default judgment against the respondent. The appellant later sought leave to enforce the judgment. Leave was refused by Registrar Hewett who made the first costs order against the appellant. The appellant appealed against that decision but did not appeal within time. On 8 November 2011 Judge Sweeney dismissed an application by the appellant for an extension of time within which to appeal. Her Honour ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs. That was the second costs order.
The appellant did not appeal against the two costs orders. All he did was to seek the suspension order. Judge O'Neal said:
The difficulty here is that there is no appeal on foot, the cost orders are for practical purposes and for my purposes, final and binding ... [T]he only reason that's ... offered by the applicants in support of their application to suspend the ... orders is the alleged incompetence of their former legal representatives.
His Honour then said that it followed that no special circumstances had been shown and he would dismiss the application.
The appellant then commenced this appeal against Judge O'Neal's order dismissing the application for a suspension order. The grounds of appeal do not allege any error by Judge O'Neal. The first ground of appeal raises some point about a company called Spunter Pty Ltd. The involvement of Spunter does not bear at all upon Judge O'Neal's reasons for dismissing the application for a suspension order. The second ground makes no allegation of error in Judge O'Neal's reasons. It alleges that the respondent was 'misleading the court and the Perth Sheriff to the effect that [the appellant] as the director of Spunter and Cheryl Law as his spouse are the persons responsible for the Nullified Costs Orders of DCJ Sweeney'. Ground 3 alleges that the 'Sweeney Null Costs Order' is not enforceable. That is not supported by the materials before this court.
None of the grounds reveal error in Judge O'Neal's decision. None of the grounds have any reasonable prospect of succeeding. The appeal must be dismissed.
0
0
2