Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2025] WASC 310

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   LYNN -v- GOODLINE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [No 2] [2025] WASC 310
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   25 JULY 2025
DELIVERED          :   6 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1661 of 2025
BETWEEN:   ELA LYNN
Applicant
AND
GOODLINE ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Administrative law - Application for a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) - Termination notice under s 70A of the Residential Tenancies Act1987 (WA) - Whether there was a denial of procedural fairness by not properly considering relevant matters - Whether there was jurisdictional error in the Magistrate deciding the matter whilst proceedings having been commenced in District Court and Supreme Court - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr S R Pack

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Wotton Kearney Lawyers

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

Allen v Contrast Constructions Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 18
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quinn (1990) 170 CLR 1
Bajaj v Magistrate Trevor Darge [2021] WASCA 218
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1
Palmer v Citic Ltd [2017] WASC 253
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re Bajaj; Ex parte Bajaj [2021] WASC 335
Re Magistrate Trevor Darge; Ex parte Snook [2023] WASC 386
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1
Teakle v The State of Western Australia (2007) 33 WAR 188

MCGRATH J:

Introduction

The applicant applies for a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) in respect of orders made by the learned Magistrate at a hearing on 8 May 2025 (Orders). Before the learned Magistrate was an application by the respondent to secure termination of a tenancy and take possession of a property pursuant to s 71 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) (RT Act). At the conclusion of the hearing, the orders made by the learned Magistrate were that the applicant pay $20,000 in unpaid rent within 14 days, failing which the respondent could obtain orders for termination and possession of the property. The applicant did not make payment. Subsequently, a property seizure and delivery order was made in favour of the respondent. The applicant now seeks a review of the Orders.
The application for a review order was commenced in this Court on an urgent ex parte basis. On 25 June 2025, I ordered that the applicant serve the Originating Motion and supporting affidavits on the two named respondents and that the matter return for a further hearing. It was necessary to require the appearance of the named respondents, for the reason that it was not possible to discern the history of the matter and the issues…

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 Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd [No 2] 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: [2025] WASC 310
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lynn v Goodline Enterprises Pty Ltd [No 2] involved the applicant, Lynn, seeking a review of orders made by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. These orders included a termination notice under section 70A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) and a property seizure and delivery order. Lynn contested the procedural fairness of these orders, arguing that the Magistrate did not properly consider relevant matters, specifically the pending proceedings in the District Court and the Supreme Court. Additionally, Lynn claimed that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction by deciding the matter while higher court proceedings were ongoing.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a denial of procedural fairness by the Magistrate in not considering the pending higher court matters and whether there was a jurisdictional error in the Magistrate deciding the matter while proceedings were ongoing in the District Court and Supreme Court. The court had to determine if the Magistrate's failure to consider the higher court proceedings constituted a denial of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error. This required an examination of the principles of procedural fairness and jurisdictional error, particularly in the context of administrative law and the Magistrates Court's authority.

The court found that procedural fairness is a practical concept aimed at avoiding practical injustice. It emphasised that procedural fairness requires a fair hearing, focusing on the decision-maker's processes rather than the outcome. The court noted that the principle was to provide an opportunity for each party to be heard and to answer the case against them. The court also highlighted that a court must be impartial and afford procedural fairness during a hearing. The court concluded that the Magistrate did not deny procedural fairness by failing to consider the higher court proceedings, as the focus was on the decision-making process rather than the actual decision. The court further held that the Magistrate did not act without jurisdiction, as the pending higher court proceedings did not automatically preclude the Magistrate from exercising their authority.

The court ordered that the application for review be dismissed. The orders made by the Magistrates Court remained in place, and Lynn's application for a stay of those orders pending the determination of the higher court proceedings was denied. The court did not restore Lynn to full possession or reinstate her ability to host homestay guests as part of her business operations. The court found no jurisdictional error or denial of procedural fairness in the Magistrate's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Procedural fairness is a practical rather than abstract concept, and the concern of the law is to avoid practical injustice.[29] What is required by procedural fairness is a fair hearing, not a fair outcome, such that the relevant focus is to enquire as to the decision-maker's processes, rather than its actual decision.[30][29] Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1 [37] - [38].[30] Attorney-General (NSW) v Quinn (1990) 170 CLR 1, 35 - 36 (Brennan J). A court must afford an applicant procedural fairness during a hearing. The court must be, and appear to be, impartial, and must provide each party to the proceedings before it with an opportunity to be heard, to advance their respective cases, and to answer the case put against them. The Originating Motion seeks a review of the Orders, the orders of Registrar Clark made 23 May 2025 and the property seizure and delivery order made on 27 May 2025. I note that the applicant did not advance any separate basis for challenging the orders made on 27 May 2025. The applicant seeks orders 'quashing the orders' made in the Magistrates Court and also seeks that 'pending the final determination of this proceeding and/or CIV 1553 of 2025, a stay be granted of [the orders]'.[31] Further, the applicant seeks an order 'restoring the applicant to full possession' and 'reinstating her ability to host homestay guests as part of her business operations.'[32][31] Originating Motion filed 23 June 2025.[32] Originating Motion filed 23 June 2025. The applicant sets out various grounds in the Originating Motion. Her primary contention is that the Orders were made without proper consideration of the pending higher court matters, being the proceedings then current as of 8 May 2025 namely, CIV 1455 of 2025 and CIV 127 of 2025. The applicant contends that the failure by the learned Magistrate to consider those proceedings resulted in 'jurisdictional error and/or denial of procedural fairness'.[33] The further grounds set out by the applicant in the Originating Motion appear intended to provide further particulars of her primary contention. The applicant contends that the learned Magistrate erroneously 'mischaracterised the matters [in the Supreme Court and District Court] as separate, failing to properly disclose the overlap with ongoing higher court proceedings.' [33] Originating Motion filed 23 June 2025. Further, the applicant contends that the proceedings in the Magistrates Court constituted an abuse of process given that the applicant had commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court and District Court (higher courts). The gravamen of this ground of review appears to be that the learned Magistrate had no power to make the Orders by virtue of the fact that the applicant had commenced proceedings in the higher courts. The grounds of review therefore distil down to an allegation that the learned Magistrate denied her procedural fairness and an allegation that the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction because she had commenced proceedings in the District Court and Supreme Court.