LINTOTT -v- HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD [2014] WADC 15

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 15
Case No:	CIV:719/2012	Heard:	29 JANUARY 2014
Coram:	EATON DCJ	Delivered:	5/02/14
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeals dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	MARK CHARLES LINTOTT HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD VIVIENNE-LEE MULDER TREVOR WAYNE JONES DARRYL WERTH HARVEY INUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD RHONDA MEGAN GADDES MICHAEL BRADLEY WOOD ANTONIO MICHAEL PANETTA
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appeal from a deputy registrar Validity of unserved writs Applications to extend validity Considerations
Legislation:	District Court Rules 2005 Limitations Act 2005 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971
Case References:	Brealey v Board of Management Royal Perth Hospital [1999] WASCA 158

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : LINTOTT -v- HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD [2014] WADC 15 CORAM : EATON DCJ HEARD : 29 JANUARY 2014 DELIVERED : 5 FEBRUARY 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 719 of 2012 BETWEEN : MARK CHARLES LINTOTT

Appellant

AND

HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 720 of 2012 BETWEEN : VIVIENNE-LEE MULDER

Appellant

AND

HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 721 of 2012 BETWEEN : TREVOR WAYNE JONES

Appellant

AND

HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 722 of 2012 BETWEEN : DARRYL WERTH

Appellant

AND

HARVEY INUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 723 of 2012 BETWEEN : RHONDA MEGAN GADDES

Appellant

AND

HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 724 of 2012 BETWEEN : MICHAEL BRADLEY WOOD

Appellant

AND

HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CIV 1029 of 2012 BETWEEN : ANTONIO MICHAEL PANETTA

Appellant

AND

HARVEY INDUSTRIES GROUP PTY LTD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal from a deputy registrar - Validity of unserved writs - Applications to extend validity - Considerations

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005

Limitations Act 2005
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Representation:

CIV 719 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Stewart

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Not applicable

CIV 720 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Stewart

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Not applicable

CIV 721 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Stewart

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Not applicable

CIV 722 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Stewart

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Not applicable

CIV 723 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Stewart

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Not applicable

CIV 724 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Stewart

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Not applicable

CIV 1029 of 2012

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Stewart

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Not…

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 Lintott v Harvey Industries Group 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: [2014] WADC 15
Decision Date: 5 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lintott v Harvey Industries Group Pty Ltd involved the appellant, Lintott, seeking to appeal against a decision made by a deputy registrar. Lintott sought to challenge the deputy registrar's refusal to accept certain writs as valid. The writs in question had not been served, and Lintott argued that the deputy registrar should have extended their validity. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the validity of unserved writs and the circumstances under which a court might extend the validity of such writs. Lintott contended that the deputy registrar should have applied principles of equity to extend the validity of the writs due to the specific circumstances surrounding their non-service. Lintott argued that this extension would have been just and equitable given the circumstances, including potential delays and other factors that contributed to the non-service.

The court considered the established principles of practice and procedure concerning the validity of writs and the authority of a deputy registrar to extend such validity. The court found that the deputy registrar had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and did not err in refusing to extend the validity of the writs. The court emphasised that the decision to extend the validity of unserved writs is a matter of discretion, and the deputy registrar had exercised that discretion appropriately based on the evidence and arguments presented. The court concluded that no grounds for appeal existed and dismissed Lintott's appeals.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.