Martin v Purnell - [1999] FCA 872

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Martin v Purnell [1999] FCA 872
MAGISTRATES – appeal to ACT Supreme Court from order of Magistrate dismissing informations as disclosing no offence – application for adjournment by appellant in person refused in Supreme Court – whether procedural unfairness in Supreme Court – whether appeal to Supreme Court competent.
MAGISTRATES – dismissal of informations as disclosing no offence – whether dismissal wrong in law – whether Magistrate considered allowing informant to amend informations to cure defects – Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 28.
MAGISTRATES – appeal to ACT Supreme Court from order of Magistrate for single lump sum for costs on several informations and from order that appellant file no further process without leave of a magistrate – lack of power to make orders – appeal not listed for hearing in Supreme Court – whether procedural unfairness in Supreme Court – whether appeal incompetent – whether Supreme Court should have exercised supervisory power in relation to orders of magistrate made without power – whether this Court should do so on appeal from Supreme Court.
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 28, s 207(1), s 219B(1)
Landlord and Tenant Act 1949 (ACT), s 89(4), s 91
Interpretation Act 1971 (ACT), s 33
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), 345, s 477
Jervis’ Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict.c.43, sec 1)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1)(b), s 28(1)
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 48A
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 20
Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933 (Cth), s 11
Emanuele v Cahill (1987) 71 ALR 302
DPP v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129
Ex parte Lovell; Re Buckley & Another (1938) 38 NSWSR 153
Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467
Re Peterson; Ex parte Brick & Pipe Industries Ltd (1994) 76 A Crim R 291
John L Proprietary Limited v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 163 CLR 508
Grey v Park (1986) 65 ALR 570
ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN v FRANCIS JOHN PURNELL and BARRY ANTHONY TAYLOR and MALCOLM PETER BRENNAN
AG 108 OF 1998
MILES, R D NICHOLSON & FINN JJ
29 JUNE 1999
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY

AG 108 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN
Appellant

AND:

FRANCIS JOHN PURNELL
First Respondent

BARRY ANTHONY TAYLOR
Second Respondent

MALCOLM PETER BRENNAN
Third Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, R D NICHOLSON & FINN JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

29 JUNE 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 16 October, 1998 in proceedings No SCA 87 of 1998 in that Court be dismissed.
2.The appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 16 October 1998 in proceedings No SCA 92 of 1998 in that Court be dismissed.
3.Notwithstanding order 2 above, this Court declares that the orders made in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court on 16 October 1998 that the informant (appellant) pay the costs…

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 Purnell

Details

AGLC: Martin v Purnell [1999] FCA 872
Case: [1999] FCA 872
Decision Date: 29 JUNE 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Martin v Purnell, the respondent, Martin, brought an action against the appellants, Purnell and another, in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court, alleging breaches of statutory duty, negligence, and nuisance. The respondents sought an injunction, damages, and an order for the appellants to demolish a wall and fence. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and subsequently to the High Court of Australia. The appellants contended that the costs orders were beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court and that the Supreme Court should have quashed the orders. The respondents argued that the orders were intra vires and that the Supreme Court correctly upheld them.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrates Court had the jurisdiction to make the orders and whether the Supreme Court was correct in upholding those orders. The court considered whether the costs orders exceeded the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction and if the Supreme Court should have quashed the orders. The court also examined whether the orders were within the scope of the statutory provisions and whether the Supreme Court was correct in not quashing them.

The court held that the Magistrates Court did not have the jurisdiction to make the orders as they were beyond its statutory powers. The court found that the orders exceeded the Magistrates Court's jurisdiction and that the Supreme Court should have quashed the orders. The court declared the orders made by the Magistrates Court null and void. The court found that the Supreme Court was correct in not quashing the orders because it had no jurisdiction to do so. The court concluded that the orders were outside the scope of the statutory provisions and that the Supreme Court was correct in not quashing them.

The court dismissed the appeals against the judgments of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and declared the orders made by the Magistrates Court null and void. The court ordered that all parties pay their own costs of the appeal. The court found that the Magistrates Court had no jurisdiction to make the orders and that the Supreme Court should have quashed them. The court concluded that the orders were outside the scope of the statutory provisions and that the Supreme Court was correct in not quashing them.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 16 October, 1998 in proceedings No SCA 87 of 1998 in that Court be dismissed.

2. The appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory given on 16 October 1998 in proceedings No SCA 92 of 1998 in that Court be dismissed.

3. Notwithstanding order 2 above, this Court declares that the orders made in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court on 16 October 1998 that the informant (appellant) pay the costs of the defendants (respondents) in the sum of $7,380 and that no further process is to be filed by the informant (appellant) without the leave of a magistrate, were made without power and are null and void.

4. All parties pay their own costs of the appeal to this Court.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG 108 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	ANTHONY GILBERT MARTIN Appellant
AND:	FRANCIS JOHN PURNELL First Respondent BARRY ANTHONY TAYLOR Second Respondent MALCOLM PETER BRENNAN Third Respondent
JUDGES:		MILES, R D NICHOLSON & FINN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		29 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:		CANBERRA