Martin v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd - [2011] WADC 177

MARTIN -v- COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION PTY LTD [2011] WADC 177

Last Update: 01/11/2011

MARTIN -v- COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION PTY LTD [2011] WADC 177
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2011] WADC 177
Published:	25/10/2011
Case No:	CIV:3715/2009	Heard:	24 OCTOBER 2011
Coram:	DERRICK DCJ	Delivered:	24/10/2011
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

On Appeal from:	Jurisdiction: DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram: REGISTRAR HEWITT File Number: CIV 3715 of 2009
Parties:	KERRY JANE MARTIN COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION PTY LTD PERMANENT TRUSTEE AUSTRALIA LIMITED COLONIAL FIRST STATE PROPERTY LTD COLONIAL FIRST STATE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD AIRLITE CLEANING PTY LTD trading as AIRLITE GROUP
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appeal against decision of deputy registrar extending entry for trial milestone and adjourning application for directions to 6 March 2012
Legislation:	District Court Rules 2005 (WA) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Case References:	Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26 Tobin v Ezekiel – Ezekiel Estate [2008] NSWSC 1108

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : MARTIN -v- COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION PTY LTD [2011] WADC 177 CORAM : DERRICK DCJ HEARD : 24 OCTOBER 2011 DELIVERED : 24 OCTOBER 2011 FILE NO/S : CIV 3715 of 2009 BETWEEN : KERRY JANE MARTIN

Plaintiff

AND

COMMONWEALTH BANK OFFICERS SUPERANNUATION CORPORATION PTY LTD

First Defendant

PERMANENT TRUSTEE AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Second Defendant

COLONIAL FIRST STATE PROPERTY LTD

Third Defendant

COLONIAL FIRST STATE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

Fourth Defendant

AIRLITE CLEANING PTY LTD trading as AIRLITE GROUP

Fifth Defendant

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : REGISTRAR HEWITT

File No : CIV 3715 of 2009

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal against decision of deputy registrar extending entry for trial milestone and adjourning application for directions to 6 March 2012

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D C Rice

First Defendant : Ms F J Dempster

Second Defendant : Ms F J Dempster

Third Defendant : Not applicable

Fourth Defendant : Ms F J Dempster

Fifth Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Griffiths Rice & Co

First Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Second Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Third Defendant : Not applicable

Fourth Defendant : Jackson McDonald

Fifth Defendant : Greenland Legal Pty Ltd

(Page 3)

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

Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Tobin v Ezekiel – Ezekiel Estate [2008] NSWSC 1108

(Page 4)

DERRICK DCJ

: [This judgment was delivered ex tempore on 24 October 2011 and has been…

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 Martin v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporati...

Details

AGLC: Martin v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] WADC 177
Case: [2011] WADC 177
Decision Date: 24 OCTOBER 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Martin v Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Martin, challenging a decision made by a deputy registrar in relation to the extension of an entry for trial milestone and the adjournment of an application for directions. The Commonwealth Bank Officers Superannuation Corporation Pty Ltd was the defendant. The dispute centred around procedural aspects of the litigation process, specifically the timelines and scheduling of events in the case.

The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the deputy registrar had the authority to extend the trial milestone entry and adjourn the application for directions without the plaintiff's consent. The plaintiff argued that the decision to extend the milestone and adjourn the application was not justified and had caused undue delay and prejudice to his case. The court was required to consider the principles governing judicial discretion in managing case timelines and the impact of such decisions on the rights of the parties involved.

The court examined the legal framework governing the scheduling of trial milestones and the exercise of judicial discretion in extending such timelines. It considered whether the deputy registrar had acted within the bounds of his authority and whether there were sufficient grounds to justify the extension and adjournment. The court found that the decision was not supported by the appropriate considerations and that the plaintiff had suffered undue prejudice as a result. Consequently, the court concluded that the appeal should be allowed, thereby setting aside the decision of the deputy registrar. This outcome restored the original timelines for the case and removed the impediments caused by the adjournment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.