JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: MCKNIGHT -v- MILLER [2023] WADC 107
CORAM: LEVY DCJ
HEARD: 4 APRIL 2023
DELIVERED : 15 SEPTEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S: APP 49 of 2022
BETWEEN: MELANIE MCKNIGHT
Appellant
AND
ELAINA MILLER
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MAGISTRATE DARGE
File Number : PER/GCLM/4037/2020
Catchwords:
Appeal - Onus of proof in a claim for damages - Whether Magistrate erred by failing to take into account relevant evidence - Whether costs claimed for damages unreasonable - Principle of judicial comity - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
District Court Rules 2005 (WA)
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Result:
Appeal allowed
Magistrate's decision set aside
Judgment in favour of the appellant in the sum of $1,930.81
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | Mr G J Pynt |
| Respondent | : | Mr F A Robertson |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Primus Law |
| Respondent | : | McCabes |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172
Arsalan v Rixon [2021] HCA 40; (2021) 395 ALR 390; (2021) 96 ALJR 1
Beamish v Kanakis [2017] WADC 33
Bee v Jenson [2006] EWHC 3359 (Comm); [2007] RTR 32
Chong v Berry [2007] NSLC 33
Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Fallon v Johnston [2018] VSC 273
Haines v Bendall [1991] HCA 15; (1991) 172 CLR 60
Hardie Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Ahern [No 3] [2010] WASC 403
Hayes v Bateman [2015] NSWLC (unreported)
Karacominakis v Big Country Developments Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 313
Lodge Holes Colliery Limited v Wednesday Corporation (1908) AC 323
McBride v UK Insurance Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144
Nicolaas v Sasso [2019] ACAT 44
Patterson v Kenny [2017] WADC 58
Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management [2015] ECWA 93; [2015] All ER 458
LEVY DCJ:
Melanie McKnight (the appellant) appeals against the decision of Magistrate Darge dismissing her claim brought against Elaina Miller (the respondent). The claim was for car rental charges relating to a temporary replacement vehicle hired by the appellant following a motor vehicle accident involving the parties.[1] The amount of the claim was ultimately the total sum of $1,930.81.[2]
[1] Melanie McKnight v Elaina Miller, PER/GCLM/4037/2020, heard 31 May 2022 before Magistrate T Drage sitting in Magistrates Court of Western Australia (Civil Jurisdiction) sitting at Perth. Reasons for Decision delivered 1 July 2022 (Learned Magistrate's reasons).
[2] The original claim, based upon a 40 day hire period less the amount paid by RAC was $2,026.68. (See further Amended Statement of Claim lodged at Fremantle Magistrates Court on 14 February 2022 - AB 12.)
The appellant contends that the learned Magistrate made a number of factual and legal errors in his reasons for decision. Those alleged errors now form the basis of nine separate grounds of appeal…
Continue reading McKnight v Miller
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McKnight v Miller [2023] WADC 107
- Case
- [2023] WADC 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at hand centred on the burden of proof in the claim for damages and the appropriateness of the costs claimed. The appellant argued that the Magistrate did not properly consider the evidence provided, which included the appellant's reliance on a hire vehicle post-accident and the necessity of this expenditure due to her specific circumstances. Additionally, the appellant contended that the Magistrate failed to adequately address the reasonableness of the claimed costs.
The court considered the principle of judicial comity and the requirement for the appellant to demonstrate error in the original decision. The court noted that the District Court's powers on appeal were contingent on the appellant proving that the Magistrate's decision was the result of a legal, factual, or discretionary error. The court scrutinised the evidence presented, including the appellant's statements, and the circumstances surrounding the accident and its aftermath. Ultimately, the court determined that the Magistrate had considered the relevant evidence and that the costs claimed were reasonable given the appellant's circumstances.
The District Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Magistrate's decision. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any legal, factual, or discretionary error in the original judgment, and therefore, no grounds existed for the appeal to be upheld.
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
As the appeal is by way of a re-hearing, it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate error in the court below.[17] [17] Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission[2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 [14]. Consequently, the powers of the District Court on an appeal are only enlivened if the appellant demonstrates that the original decision made by the magistrate the subject of the appeal was the result of some legal, factual or discretionary error.[18] [18] Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172 [23]. If an error is demonstrated by the appellant, the orders that the District Court may make on the appeal are set out in s 43 of the MCCPA. They include:(7)The appeal court may -(a)confirm, vary or set aside all or a part of the lower court's judgment; (b)give any judgment and make any order that the Magistrates Court could have given or made; (c)order a new hearing in, or trial of, the case to be held in the Magistrates Court; (d)order the Magistrates Court to enter judgment in favour of a party; (e)make an order as to the costs of the appeal and as to the costs in the Magistrates Court and, in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, as to the costs in the District Court; (f)make any orders that are necessary as a result of other orders it has made. Before considering the grounds of appeal and substantive issues, it is important to set out the relevant evidence and materials relied upon by the parties at the hearing before the learned Magistrate. The appellant's motor vehicle was a 2013 model Opel hatchback. At the time of the motor vehicle collision the appellant's circumstances included:[19][19] Exhibits 1 and 2 tendered at trial, Statements of Intended Evidence of Melanie McKnight dated 27 April 2021 and 23 May 2022.(a)She was 25 years old and lived in Alkimos.(b)She had a daughter and was pregnant at the time.(c)She was employed fulltime as a financial analyst at a company based in Osborne Park.(d)She required her motor vehicle for various purposes including:(i)Driving to and from work, a commute of between 45 minutes to an hour each way.(ii)Driving her daughter to and from school as well as attending extra-curricular activities.(iii)Daily errands; and(iv)Attending medical appointments relating to her pregnancy. A tow truck attended the scene immediately after the motor vehicle accident. The appellant formed the view that her vehicle was not driveable and needed to be towed to a repairer. The appellant instructed the tow truck driver to tow her vehicle away. The tow truck driver recommended that she contact Compass to obtain a hire vehicle, which she did the same day. The appellant was aware of accident replacement vehicle companies having previously used the services of one (Right 2 Drive) following an earlier accident where she had not been at fault. The appellant did not make any enquiries with rental hire companies as to the cost of obtaining a rental vehicle. The appellant caught a taxi from the accident scene to her mother's house in Mindarie.