JUDGE:	Keogh J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 October 2024
DATE OF RULING:	17 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Ma v Ashraff
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 350

---

APPEAL — Appeal of Magistrate decision to dismiss application for review of Judicial Registrar decision — Whether appellant denied procedural fairness — Where appellant prevented from adducing potentially relevant evidence — Where appellant prevented from cross-examining respondent on relevant credit issues — Magistrate did not sufficiently address unfairness to appellant — Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) s 16K — Magistrates’ Court Judicial Registrar Rules 2015 (Vic) r 16 — Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Self-represented
For the Respondent	S Ryan	Ligeti Partners

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This appeal concerns competing property damage claims brought in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, arising from a collision between motor vehicles being driven by the parties. A Magistrates’ Court Judicial Registrar found that the collision was caused by the negligent driving of the appellant in this proceeding, Mr Jun Ma, and on that basis dismissed his claim and found in favour of the respondent, Mr Mohamad Ashraff, in relation to a counterclaim (‘JR decision’).[1] A Magistrate subsequently dismissed Ma’s application for review of the JR decision (‘review decision’).[2] This proceeding is an appeal of the review decision by Ma.
[1]Ma v Mohamed Ashraff (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Judicial Registrar Paton, 11 October 2023) (‘JR decision’).
[2]Jun Ma v Mohamed Ashraff (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Magistrate Thomas, 5 March 2024) (‘Review decision’).

The central issue before the Magistrate was whether Ma was denied procedural fairness because the Judicial Registrar refused to admit into evidence recordings of telephone conversations between the parties and a person assisting Ma in the claims process, Mr Zhanyu Zhong, in the months after the collision. Ma argued that during those conversations, Ashraff made admissions about the circumstances of the collision and said that he had sent dash camera (‘dashcam’) footage of the accident to his insurer. Ma submitted that these matters were central to his argument that Ashraff was liable for the collision. The Magistrate found that the Judicial Registrar erred by refusing to admit the recordings into evidence, however, concluded that this error did not result in any unfairness or disadvantage to Ma because he had been allowed to ask questions of Ashraff on the basis of what was said in the conversations, and the transcripts of the conversations and Ashraff’s answers to these questions did not advance Ma’s case.

For the following reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and the review application remitted for reconsideration.

Background

The collision occurred on 5 July 2022 in the vicinity of a service station in Caroline Springs. The parties agreed that prior to the accident, Ma slowed and attempted to enter…

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 MA v Ashraff

Details

AGLC: MA v Ashraff [2025] VSC 350
Case: [2025] VSC 350
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of MA v Ashraff involved an appeal against a decision of a magistrate to dismiss an application for review of a decision made by a Judicial Registrar. The dispute centred around the appellant's claim that they were denied procedural fairness during the proceedings. Specifically, the appellant argued that they were prevented from adducing potentially relevant evidence and from cross-examining the respondent on issues concerning creditworthiness. The appeal was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness. The court needed to determine if the magistrate's decision to dismiss the application for review was justified, particularly in light of the appellant's inability to present certain evidence and cross-examine the respondent on credit-related matters. The court had to consider whether these limitations constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness as enshrined in the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) and the Magistrates’ Court Judicial Registrar Rules 2015 (Vic).

The court found that the magistrate did not sufficiently address the unfairness experienced by the appellant. The restrictions on the appellant's ability to present evidence and cross-examine the respondent on credit issues were significant enough to constitute a denial of procedural fairness. Consequently, the court concluded that the magistrate's decision to dismiss the application for review was flawed. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Magistrates’ Court for further consideration.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the magistrate to dismiss the application for review was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the Magistrates’ Court to be reconsidered in light of the findings on procedural fairness.

Orders