Miller v Muir - [2013] WADC 6 (S)

MILLER -v- MUIR [2013] WADC 6 (S)

Last Update: 19/02/2013

MILLER -v- MUIR [2013] WADC 6 (S)
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WADC 6 (S)
Published:	21/01/2013
Case No:	CIV:2529/2010	Heard:	11-13 DECEMBER 2012
Coram:	BOWDEN DCJ	Delivered:	21/01/2013
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:	19/02/2013
No of Pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Each party ordered to pay their own costs
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	HELEN FRANCIS MILLER CELESTE MARIE MUIR
Catchwords:	Costs Plaintiff successful in its claim Defendant successful on part of its counterclaim
Legislation:	District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 District Court Rules 2005 Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 Supreme Court Act 1935
Case References:	Broadway Pty Ltd Trading as Trustee for The Criddle Family Trust v Lewis [2012] WASC 373 (S) Godden v Alford [1960] WAR 235 Permanent Building Society v Wheeler [No 2] (1993) 10 WAR 569

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : MILLER -v- MUIR [2013] WADC 6 (S) CORAM : BOWDEN DCJ HEARD : 11-13 DECEMBER 2012 DELIVERED : 21 JANUARY 2013 SUPPLEMENTARY
DECISION : 19 FEBRUARY 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 2529 of 2010 BETWEEN : HELEN FRANCIS MILLER

Plaintiff

AND

CELESTE MARIE MUIR

Defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Plaintiff successful in its claim - Defendant successful on part of its counterclaim

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969
District Court Rules 2005
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971
Supreme Court Act 1935

(Page 2)

Result:

Each party ordered to pay their own costs

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr I L K Marshall

Defendant : Ms K A Vernon

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Aboriginal Legal Service

Defendant : Lyn Zinenko Lawyers

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

Broadway Pty Ltd Trading as Trustee for The Criddle Family Trust v Lewis [2012] WASC 373 (S)
Godden v Alford [1960] WAR 235
Permanent Building Society v Wheeler [No 2] (1993) 10 WAR 569

(Page 3)

1 BOWDEN DCJ: In this case the issues between the parties were 'interlocked'. The whole case revolved around one incident, that is, what occurred when Constable Muir and other police officers attended the plaintiff's residence in response to a domestic disturbance, albeit there were several phases to that incident.

2 The plaintiff was successful in its claim against the defendant for the tort of battery arising out of the second incident and recovered $6,000.

3 The defendant was successful in its claim against the plaintiff for a battery arising out of the first incident and recovered $6,000.

4 The defendant was not successful in its claim for battery arising out of the third incident as I found the plaintiff was acting in self-defence.

The plaintiff's submissions

5 The plaintiff says she was successful in her claim (the second incident) and should have her costs on that basis. They point out the defendant ran a defence (provocation) that as…

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 Muir

Details

AGLC: MILLER -v- MUIR [2013] WADC 6 (S)
Case: [2013] WADC 6 (S)
Decision Date: 21 JANUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miller v Muir was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Miller, sought to recover a debt from the defendant, Muir, who in turn sought to offset this debt by claiming that Miller had breached an agreement. The court was required to determine whether Miller was entitled to recover the debt, and if so, whether Muir's counterclaim could offset the amount owed.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the debt claimed by Miller was valid and enforceable. Additionally, the court needed to assess the merits of Muir's counterclaim and determine if it could be used to offset the debt. This involved examining the terms of the original agreement between the parties and the nature of the alleged breach by Miller.

The court found that the debt claimed by Miller was valid and enforceable. However, it also determined that Muir's counterclaim was well-founded. As a result, the court ruled that Muir's counterclaim could be used to offset the amount owed by Miller. Given that both parties were partially successful, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs. This decision ensures that neither party receives a financial advantage from the litigation process, reflecting the balanced outcome of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each party ordered to pay their own costs

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.