Lee v Brandis - [2024] WASCA 150

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   LEE -v- BRANDIS [2024] WASCA 150
CORAM:   VAUGHAN JA
HALL JA

HEARD:   22 NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   22 NOVEMBER 2024
PUBLISHED           :   26 NOVEMBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   CACV 54 of 2024
BETWEEN:   JEFFREY STEWART LEE
Appellant
AND
COLIN ROWLEY BRANDIS
First Respondent
KINGSFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
PAOLO FILLIPO AMARANTI
Third Respondent
ROTTNEST ISLAND AUTHORITY
Fourth Respondent
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Fifth Respondent

FILE NO/S: CACV 55 of 2024
BETWEEN: JEFFREY STEWART LEE
Appellant
AND
COLIN ROWLEY BRANDIS
First Respondent
KINGSFIELD HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Second Respondent
PAOLO FILLIPO AMARANTI
Third Respondent
ROTTNEST ISLAND AUTHORITY
Fourth Respondent
STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Fifth Respondent

FILE NO/S: CACV 57 of 2024
BETWEEN: JEFFREY STEWART LEE
Appellant
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   LUNDBERG J
Citation: LEE -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2023] WASC 182
File Number            :   CIV 2011 of 2022, GDA 10 of 2022, GDA 7 of 2022, CIV 2660 of 2015
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   LUNDBERG J
Citation: LEE -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [No 2] [2023] WASC 247
File Number            :   GDA 7 of 2022, CIV 2660 of 2015, CIV 2011 of 2022, GDA 10 of 2022

Catchwords:

Appeals - Practice and procedure - Applications for leave to appeal - Right to appeal exhausted where previous appeals by appellant against impugned orders dismissed for being incompetent - No right to commence further appeal from same decision - Leave to appeal refused

Appeals - Application for leave to appeal - Appeal against case management orders - Leave to appeal refused where case management orders overtaken by determination of substantive dispute

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Applications for leave to appeal refused
Appeals dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

CACV 54 of 2024

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	J Berson
Fourth Respondent	:	J Berson
Fifth Respondent	:	J Berson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Fourth Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Fifth Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

CACV 55 of 2024

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	J Berson
Fourth Respondent	:	J Berson
Fifth Respondent	:	J Berson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Fourth Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office
Fifth Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

CACV 57 of 2024

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	J Berson

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571
Doble v Chaffey Services Pty Ltd [2023] WASCA 180
Kingsfield Holdings Pty Ltd v Rutherford [2016] WASC 117

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 Lee v Brandis

Details

AGLC: Lee v Brandis [2024] WASCA 150
Case: [2024] WASCA 150
Decision Date: 26 NOVEMBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lee and Brandis were involved in a legal dispute that reached the court. The primary focus of the case was on the procedural aspects of appeals, specifically the appellant's right to appeal certain orders. The court in this instance was called upon to determine the validity and admissibility of an appeal made by Lee against Brandis, considering previous appeals against the same orders had already been dismissed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had the right to appeal further orders when previous appeals against those same orders had been dismissed for being incompetent. The court had to consider if the appellant's right to appeal had been exhausted by the prior dismissals and if the appellant could still seek leave to appeal from the same decision. Additionally, the court examined whether the case management orders had become irrelevant due to the resolution of the substantive dispute, impacting the admissibility of the appeal.

The court's reasoning concluded that the appellant's right to appeal had indeed been exhausted by the dismissal of previous appeals, which were considered incompetent. The court held that since the appellant had no further right to appeal from the same decision, the application for leave to appeal was invalid. Furthermore, the court determined that the case management orders had been overtaken by events, specifically the determination of the substantive dispute, rendering the appeal moot. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for leave to appeal, affirming that the appellant had no further right to appeal the impugned orders and that the appeal was rendered irrelevant by the resolution of the substantive matter.

Orders