NYONI -v- HEE [2014] WASCA 84

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASCA 84
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:23/2014	Heard:	4 APRIL 2014
Coram:	PULLIN JA NEWNES JA	Delivered:	17/04/14
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	EMSON NYONI CHEE KOON HEE CK HEE PTY LTD S C TAN PTY LTD KRUTI PTY LTD REGISTRAR OF TITLES COMMISSIONER OF TITLES
Catchwords:	Appeal Whether any of the grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 14 r 2(1) Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(i) Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)
Case References:	Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson (2003) 28 WAR 308 Hee v Nyoni [2014] WASC 44 Norton v Angus (1926) 38 CLR 523 Nyoni v Chee Koon Hee [No 4] [2013] FCA 948

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : NYONI -v- HEE [2014] WASCA 84 CORAM : PULLIN JA

NEWNES JA

HEARD : 4 APRIL 2014 DELIVERED : 17 APRIL 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 23 of 2014 BETWEEN : EMSON NYONI

Appellant

AND

CHEE KOON HEE

First Respondent

CK HEE PTY LTD

Second Respondent

S C TAN PTY LTD

Third Respondent

KRUTI PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

REGISTRAR OF TITLES

Fifth Respondent

COMMISSIONER OF TITLES

Sixth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : ACTING MASTER GETHING

Citation : HEE -v- NYONI [2014] WASC 44

File No : CIV 2468 of 2013

Catchwords:

Appeal - Whether any of the grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 14 r 2(1)

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(i)
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Mr A J Arristei

Second Respondent : Mr A J Arristei

Third Respondent : Mr A J Arristei

Fourth Respondent : Mr A J Arristei

Fifth Respondent : No appearance

Sixth Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

First Respondent : Irdi Legal

Second Respondent : Irdi Legal

Third Respondent : Irdi Legal

Fourth Respondent : Irdi Legal

Fifth Respondent : No appearance

Sixth Respondent : No appearance

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

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson (2003) 28 WAR 308
Hee v Nyoni [2014] WASC 44
Norton v Angus (1926) 38 CLR 523
Nyoni v Chee Koon Hee [No 4] [2013] FCA 948

1 REASONS OF THE COURT: A registrar's notice to attend required the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the basis that none of the appellant's grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding. The appellant's application for a stay of orders made by Acting Master Gething on 21 February 2014 is also listed…

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 Nyoni v Hee

Details

AGLC: Nyoni v Hee [2014] WASCA 84
Case: [2014] WASCA 84
Decision Date: 17 APRIL 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nyoni v Hee involved the appeal by the respondent against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The respondent, Hee, sought to appeal the decision which was made by the Federal Circuit Court in relation to proceedings involving the applicant, Nyoni. The nature of the dispute was related to the respondent's appeal against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court, which had found that the respondent was in contempt of the Federal Court. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether any of the grounds of appeal presented by the respondent had any reasonable prospect of success. The respondent contended that the primary judge had erred in law and that the decision was otherwise plainly wrong. The court was required to examine the grounds of appeal and assess whether there was a reasonable prospect of success in each case.

The court examined each of the grounds of appeal and found that none of them had any reasonable prospect of success. The court held that the primary judge had not erred in law and that the decision was not plainly wrong. The court found that the primary judge had given proper consideration to the evidence and had made findings that were open on the evidence. The court dismissed the appeal and held that the decision of the Federal Circuit Court should stand. The appeal was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.