McCorkindale v Delamont - [2002] NSWSC 540

CITATION: McCorkindale v Delamont [2002] NSWSC 540

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11511/2002

HEARING DATE(S): 12 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 20 June 2002

PARTIES :

Garry Frederick McCorkindale & Christine Mary McCorkindale
t/as Timber Accents
(Plaintiff)
Harry John Delamont t/as Mad Harry's Hardware & Rural
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 167/01

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Moon LCM

COUNSEL :
Mr L T Grey
(Plaintiff)
Mr M J Robinson
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
McCabe Partners Lawyers
(Plaintiff)
Gordon Garling Moffitt
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Appeal from Local Court - Denial of natural justice - Opportunity to make submissions

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Court (Civil Claims Act) 1970

CASES CITED: Wakin v Mathiew Pty Ltd t/as Dove Migration Services [2002] NSWSC 405, 9 May 2002 O'Keefe J
White v Ryde Municipal Council (1977) 2 NSWLR 909
Jet 60 Minute Cleaners Pty Limited v Brownette (1981) 2 NSWLR 232

DECISION: (1) The summons filed 30 May 2002 is dismissed; (2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISIon

MASTER HARRISON

THURSDAY, 20 JUNE 2002
11511/2002 - GARRY FREDERICK McCORKINDALE &

CHRISTINE MARY McCORKINDALE t/as
TIMBER ACCENTS v HARRY JOHN

DELAMONT t/as MAD HARRY’S HARDWARE AND RURAL

JUDGMENT (Appeal from Local Court: denial of
natural justice; opportunity to make
submissions)

1 MASTER: By summons filed 30 May 2002 the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to Part 69 (2A) of the Local Court (Civil Claims Act) 1970, an order setting aside the judgment by Moon LCM dated 15 May 2002, and an order that the Small Claims Division statement of liquidated claim in matter No 167/01 in Young be transferred to Sydney and be determined by a Magistrate in Sydney. The plaintiff relied on the affidavits of Melissa Fitzgibbon sworn 29 May 2002 and 11 June 2002. The defendant relied on the affidavit of David Thornton Gray sworn 6 June 2002.

2 The defendant filed a notice of contention which raises the following issues; firstly, the defendant submitted that he is entitled on the evidence of the verdict of the lower tribunal; secondly, the hearing was conducted in accordance with the practice notes of the Chief Magistrate of the local court; thirdly, that both parties had an equal opportunity to call evidence; fourthly, that both parties had an opportunity to respond to each others evidence and to closing submissions; fifthly, the plaintiff had an advantage to the defendant’s proposed submissions a day earlier than the hearing and the opportunity to consider and respond to them in writing if required; sixthly, the plaintiff took the opportunity to respond to the defendant’s submissions by addressing the court in responding to the same and seeking leave out of time to file a defence to the cross claim; seventhly, the plaintiff had the benefit of consent for filing a defence to the cross claim out of time; eighthly, that the plaintiff had the benefit of advice from the…

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 McCorkindale v Delamont 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: [2002] NSWSC 540
Decision Date: 20 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of McCorkindale v Delamont was heard in the Local Court, where the appellant, McCorkindale, challenged the decision of the respondent, Delamont, who acted in an official capacity. McCorkindale sought to overturn the respondent's decision, arguing that it was made without providing him an opportunity to make submissions, thereby denying him a fair hearing and natural justice. The dispute centred around whether the respondent's failure to allow McCorkindale to present his case constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the denial of an opportunity for McCorkindale to make submissions before the decision was made constituted a breach of natural justice. The court had to determine if the decision-making process adhered to the fundamental principles of fairness, specifically whether McCorkindale was given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the matters that would affect his rights. This involved examining the procedural fairness required in administrative decisions and whether the respondent's actions were consistent with these requirements.

The court found that the respondent's decision-making process did indeed contravene the principles of natural justice. It was held that McCorkindale was entitled to be heard before a decision was made that would adversely affect him. The court emphasised that procedural fairness is a fundamental requirement in administrative law, and this includes providing an opportunity for the affected party to present their case. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision was invalid due to the breach of natural justice and ordered the matter to be remitted for reconsideration, ensuring that McCorkindale is given a fair opportunity to make submissions.

Orders