Legal Research
Cases
Miller v McKnight

Miller v McKnight

Case [2023] WASCA 182 14 December 2023

Unconscionable Conduct

Unjust Enrichment

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   MILLER -v- MCKNIGHT [2023] WASCA 182
CORAM:   MITCHELL JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   7 DECEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   14 DECEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   CACV 109 of 2023
BETWEEN:   ELAINA MILLER
Appellant
AND
MELANIE MCKNIGHT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   LEVY DCJ
Citation: MCKNIGHT -v- MILLER [2023] WADC 107
File Number            :   APP 49 of 2022

Catchwords:

Appeals - Practice and procedure - Appeal against orders of District Court allowing appeal against orders of Magistrates Court - Claim for $1,930.81 in the Magistrates Court - Costs of the appeal disproportionate to the amount claimed - Whether discretion should be exercised to strike out the appeal - Where appeal would raise question of legal principle of general application, namely the extent to which credit hire charges are recoverable

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 43(3)

Result:

Appeal to proceed for hearing and determination

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	N J Owens SC & L N Firios
Respondent	:	B Walker SC & W R Richey

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	McCabes
Respondent	:	Primus Law - NSW

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

Arsalan v Rixon [2021] HCA 40; (2021) 274 CLR 606
Cristovao v John Horton & Associates [2012] WASCA 12
Defendi v Eden Hill Plasterers [2008] WASCA 269
Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384
Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64; [2004] 1 AC 1067
McBride v UK Insurance Ltd; Clayton v EUI Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144; [2017] RTR 27
McKnight v Miller (Unreported, MCWA, 1 July 2022)
McKnight v Miller [2023] WADC 107
O'Bree v Collier [2012] WASCA 88
Pattni v First Leicester Buses Ltd; Bent v Highways and Utilities Construction Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1384; [2012] RTR 17
Rankilor v Etihad Airways PJSC [2019] WASCA 36
Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 93; [2015] 4 All ER 458
Tey v Optima Financial Group Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 219
Triplett v Busselton City FC Inc [2019] WASCA 98

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Overview

This appeal comes before the court pursuant to an amended registrar's notice to attend dated 24 October 2023 to consider whether the appeal should be struck out pursuant to s 43(3) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA). Section 43(3) provides, in substance, that this court:
may strike out the appeal if the likely costs of the appeal to the parties would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim in, or the nature of, the case which is the subject of the appeal.
The case in the Magistrates Court concerned a claim by the respondent against the appellant for $1,930.81.
For the reasons that follow the power under s 43(3) of the Act to strike out the appeal is enlivened. The real issue is one of discretion. In the unusual circumstances of the appeal we would decline to exercise the power under…

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 Miller v McKnight

Details

AGLC: Miller v McKnight [2023] WASCA 182
Case: [2023] WASCA 182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal arises from a claim made by Melanie McKnight against Elaina Miller in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The claim was for $1,930.81, representing the difference between the amount charged by a credit hire provider for a temporary replacement vehicle and the amount paid by Miller's insurer. The appeal concerns the extent to which credit hire charges are recoverable. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appeal should be struck out pursuant to s 43(3) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), which provides that the court may strike out an appeal if the likely costs of the appeal to the parties would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim in the case or the nature of the case. The Court of Appeal found that the power under s 43(3) of the Act to strike out the appeal was enlivened because the likely costs of the appeal to the parties would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim in the Magistrates Court. However, the court decided not to exercise the power to strike out the appeal, finding that the appeal should proceed to hearing and determination. The court's reasoning was informed by the statutory purpose of s 43(3), which is to prevent disproportionate costs being incurred by the parties on appeals from proceedings in the Magistrates Court. The court found that, in the unusual circumstances of the appeal, there were wider benefits that may accrue to the benefit of the administration of justice in the court hearing and determining the appeal. The appeal raises a question of legal principle of general application concerning the extent to which credit hire charges are recoverable. The court found that proceeding with the hearing and determination of the appeal would not prevent or hinder the fulfilment of the statutory purpose of s 43(3). The appeal should proceed to hearing and determination. The parties' costs of and incidental to the question of whether the appeal should be struck out under s 43(3) should be reserved.

Orders