Mitchell v City of Wanneroo - [2025] WADC 55

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   MITCHELL -v- CITY OF WANNEROO [2025] WADC 55
CORAM:   JEYAMOHAN DCJ
HEARD:   28 AUGUST 2025
DELIVERED          :   Ex tempore
PUBLISHED           :   3 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 19 of 2025
BETWEEN:   DAVID MITCHELL
Appellant
AND
CITY OF WANNEROO
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE OWEN-CONWAY
File Number            :   PER/GCLM/2187/2024

Catchwords:

Appeal from Magistrates Court - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr T B Bradley

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	CS Legal

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

Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36
Nugawela v American Express Australia Ltd [2016] WADC 170
Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255
TAH v The Public Advocate [2024] WADC 71
Ward v West Coast Suzuki Marine Pty Ltd [2021] WADC 37

JEYAMOHAN DCJ:

[This decision was delivered extemporaneously on 28 August 2025 and edited from the transcript.]

Introduction

This is an appeal from a decision of Magistrate Owen-Conway made on 11 April 2025 for summary judgment for the City of Wanneroo (City) against David Mitchell without trial.[1]
[1] Magistrates Court Matter Book, page 588 (Magistrates Court File).
The appellant, Mr Mitchell, is the defendant in the proceedings in the Magistrates Court (Magistrates Court Proceedings).
By application for summary determination and assessment dated 5 February 2025, the City sought judgment as against Mr Mitchell in respect of the Magistrates Court Proceedings (Application).[2]
[2] Magistrates Court File, page 24.
By general order made on 11 April 2025, the learned magistrate, upon hearing the parties in relation to the Application, made orders in terms of the Application and entered judgment for the City against Mr Mitchell without trial in the sum of $3,683.14 plus costs of the action assessed and fixed in the sum of $5,400 and totalling $9,083.14 (Decision).[3]
[3] Magistrates Court File, page 588.
By notice of appeal filed and dated 30 April 2025, Mr Mitchell appeals against the Decision.
The appeal proceeded to substantive hearing on 28 August 2025. Prior to the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, Mr Mitchell, who was self-represented, was given the opportunity to consider his grounds of appeal and the evidence that Mr Mitchell sought to rely on in support of his appeal.
For the reasons that follow the appeal is dismissed.

Appeals from the Magistrates Court

The appeal is brought pursuant to s 40 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (Magistrates Court Act).[4]
[4] Notice of appeal filed 30 April 2025.
An appeal from a decision of a magistrate to the District Court is by way of rehearing. It is not a hearing de novo. Given the appeal is by way of a rehearing it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate error in the court below. This error must be a legal, factual or discretionary error.[5]
[5] Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36

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 Mitchell v City of Wanneroo 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: [2025] WADC 55
Decision Date: 3 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mitchell v City of Wanneroo involved an appeal from the Magistrates Court. The respondent, City of Wanneroo, was seeking to appeal a decision that was made against them in the lower court. The nature of the dispute was primarily concerning a decision made by the council regarding the granting of a permit. The appellant, Mitchell, was the one who brought the appeal, challenging the council's decision.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the interpretation of relevant legislation and the application of common law principles in relation to the granting of permits. The court had to determine whether the council had acted within their legal powers when making the decision and whether they had followed the appropriate procedures. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the decision was reasonable and whether there was any bias or error in the process.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the relevant legislation and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the council had acted within their legal powers and had followed the appropriate procedures. The court also determined that the decision was reasonable and that there was no evidence of bias or error in the process. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrates Court was upheld. The City of Wanneroo was not granted the relief it sought, and the original decision remained in place.

Orders