Miles v Magistrate Langdon
[2015] WASC 418
•22 OCTOBER 2015
MILES -v- MAGISTRATE LANGDON [2015] WASC 418
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASC 418 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2631/2015 | 22 OCTOBER 2015 | |
| Coram: | CHANEY J | 22/10/15 | |
| 5 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Matter dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | KEITH IAN MILES MAGISTRATE LANGDON WARREN SOUTHWELL FREMANTLE MAGISTRATES COURT REGISTRAR |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Non-attendance by plaintiff Whether proceedings should be dismissed Proceedings misconceived and serving no useful purpose Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
MAGISTRATE LANGDON
First Defendant
WARREN SOUTHWELL FREMANTLE MAGISTRATES COURT REGISTRAR
Second Defendant
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Non-attendance by plaintiff - Whether proceedings should be dismissed - Proceedings misconceived and serving no useful purpose - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)
Result:
Matter dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : In person
First Defendant : No appearance
Second Defendant : No appearance
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : In person
First Defendant : No appearance
Second Defendant : No appearance
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
CHANEY J:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 22 October 2015 and has been edited from the transcript.)
1 This matter comes before me having been adjourned to 9.15 am this morning for directions from a hearing conducted on 14 October. At the hearing on 14 October Mr Miles sought an urgent interim injunction to suspend the operation of an order made by the Fremantle Magistrates Court on 7 October.
2 Mr Miles has commenced another action in this court against Murdoch University, concerning his exclusion from the campus of that university. He has also instituted proceedings, which remain to be finally resolved, against a body known as Community Living Villages Pty Ltd. All of these actions are interrelated. In particular, the action against Community Living Villages was the subject of an interim injunction granted by Pritchard J in September. The injunction related to Mr Miles' occupation of accommodation on the Murdoch University campus that is provided by Community Living Villages. That injunction was subsequently dismissed. These proceedings concern orders made by the Fremantle Magistrates Court under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) requiring Mr Miles to vacate that accommodation.
3 The history of those other two actions is replete with failures by Mr Miles to attend appointed hearings at the court on time. When the matter against Murdoch University was called on 16 October, Mr Miles was about an hour late. That was not the first occasion when Mr Miles had not attended on time. During the proceedings before Pritchard J, there were occasions when Mr Miles did not attend until well after the appointed times. At the hearing on 16 October, I made it clear to Mr Miles that this continued course of conduct was unacceptable, and that in the future I would be calling, and proceeding with, listed maters at their appointed times irrespective of his attendance. It is now 9.30 am, the matter having been listed for directions at 9.15 am. There has been no communication from Mr Miles indicating that he would be absent or late, let alone any reason for such absence or delay.
4 Therefore, against that background and having regard to the apparent merits of the application before me, it is appropriate that this application should be dismissed. That is in part because of Mr Miles' non-attendance on the application in the circumstances as outlined. There also appear to be insurmountable difficulties in the action which is brought.
5 The respondents to this application are nominated as the registrar of the Fremantle Magistrates Court and the magistrate who made the decision on 7 October. The relief sought is an injunction to prohibit or suspend the magistrate's order of 7 October from being 'actioned today', and for that restraint to continue pending the outcome of various other proceedings, either undertaken or simply contemplated by Mr Miles, against employees of Murdoch University and against Community Living Villages.
6 When I declined interim relief on 14 October, I noted that the proceedings had several defects. In particular, I noted that Community Living Villages was not a party to these proceedings, and that it is clearly its interests which are potentially affected by the orders which were sought. I adjourned the matter to today to enable Mr Miles to consider the position and to join Community Living Villages if he proposed to continue with the action. On the basis of the file before me, nothing has been done in the interim in that regard.
7 A second fundamental difficulty is that the relief seeks to, in effect, enable Mr Miles to remain in his accommodation at Murdoch University pending the outcome of various actions which seem to be unrelated to questions of accommodation. There is no apparent connection between the proposed actions and Mr Miles' entitlement to occupy his accommodation. In any event, it is apparent, from information given by Mr Miles to the court in the context of his proceedings against Murdoch University, that he has now vacated the premises. The magistrate's order of 7 October, which Mr Miles seeks to extend, is an order that a previous order that he vacate his accommodation be stayed until 14 October. That order has now taken effect and Mr Miles has vacated the premises. So there is no apparent point in the relief which he seeks.
8 A third difficulty is that the magistrate's proceedings were brought under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act. The precise jurisdiction or basis upon which Mr Miles seeks to review the orders of the Magistrates Court is unclear. However, I am mindful of s 26 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which provides that an order made by a court under that Act is final and binding on all parties to the proceedings and that no appeal lies in respect thereof.
9 Section 26(2) provides that:
No declaratory judgment shall be given and no order shall be made under section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 in respect of proceedings taken or to be taken under this Act in the Magistrates Court or any order made in such proceedings by that court, unless the Supreme Court is satisfied that the Magistrates Court had or has no jurisdiction conferred by or under this Act in respect of the proceedings or that a party to the proceedings has been denied natural justice.
10 Mr Miles' application does make reference to concerns as to whether or not he was accorded natural justice in relation to proceedings in the Fremantle Magistrates Court. However, it is clear that these concerns relate to proceedings which led to an order made on 4 September, which required Mr Miles to vacate his premises. The proceedings dealt with by the magistrate on 7 October, which are the subject of a challenge in these proceedings, are proceedings brought by Mr Miles to set aside the order of 4 September; undoubtedly on the basis of his claim that he had been denied procedural fairness. There is no suggestion that Mr Miles was denied procedural fairness at the proceedings on 7 October, in which he attended, participated in, and appropriately availed himself of a right to a review of the 4 September hearing. Consequently, it appears that s 26 of the Residential Tenancies Act precludes the proceedings that Mr Miles seeks to bring in this court.
11 There is a final matter which would seem to render fatal any challenge by Mr Miles to the order that he vacate his premises. That is that, although the papers are not entirely clear, it is apparent, and has been apparent from Mr Miles' submissions when he appeared last week, that the reason for his eviction was a failure to pay the rental due for his premises. Mr Miles, in his submissions last week, did not argue with the proposition, and indeed confirmed, that he had been unable to pay the rent due. It follows that the foundation for the order, and the basis upon which the orders on both 4 September and 7 October were made, is unchallenged. It is thus apparent that, even if Mr Miles had a basis to challenge the Magistrates Court proceedings in this court, which, as I have stated, I do not think he does, it is unlikely that any order preserving his right of occupation would be made in this court given his acknowledged failure to pay his rent.
12 For those reasons, these proceedings should be dismissed rather than prolonged at the potential inconvenience of other parties, and of the court, in circumstances where they appear doomed to failure. It may be that Mr Miles' non-attendance today reflects a recognition on his part that the proceedings can serve no useful purpose and are, in any event, misconceived. So for those reasons, there will be an order that the application is dismissed.
0
0
1