Parfenova v Power LEGENDS Pty Ltd - [2019] WASCA 168

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   PARFENOVA -v- POWER LEGENDS PTY LTD [2019] WASCA 168
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   25 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   25 OCTOBER 2019
PUBLISHED           :   25 OCTOBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   CACV 102 of 2019
BETWEEN:   IRYNA PARFENOVA
Appellant
AND
POWER LEGENDS PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   STEVENSON DCJ
File Number             :   APP 58 of 2018

Catchwords:

Civil contractual dispute determined as a minor claim in the Magistrates Court - Whether there was a denial of natural justice in the magistrate's dealing with the case - Whether proposed appeal has any reasonable prospects of success - Whether an extension of time to file an appellant's case should be granted - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 32, s 40, s 42

Result:

Application for an extension of time to file an appellant's case dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

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

Defendi v Szigligeti [2019] WASCA 115

REASONS OF THE COURT:

At the conclusion of the hearing on 25 October 2019, we dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of time to file an appellant's case and dismissed the appeal. These are our reasons for making those orders.

Background

Between late 2014 and March 2015, the respondent, a commercial and residential electrician service, carried out electrical work at the appellant's house in Wellard. The respondent issued an invoice claiming $4,750.86 for that work.[1]
[1] Magistrates Court ts 10/5/18, 5 - 6.
The appellant refused to pay, contending that she had been overcharged for the services and materials, and that the work was defective.[2]
[2] Magistrates Court ts 10/5/18, 5 - 8.

Magistrates Court proceedings

On 20 May 2016, the respondent commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court, claiming the invoice amount and the court fee.[3] The claim was subsequently reduced to $2,950.86.[4] The appellant did not file a counterclaim.[5]
[3] Magistrates Court Consumer/Trader Claim Minor Case lodged 20 May 2016.
[4] Magistrates Court ts 10/5/18, 6 - 7.
[5] In this regard, see Magistrates Court ts 10/5/18, 3.
The Magistrates Court proceedings were conducted under the minor cases procedure established by pt 4 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (Act).
A trial took place in the Magistrates Court from 29 - 30 January 2018 before Magistrate Walton. The appellant, whose native language is Russian, was self-represented. Mr Jones, a director of the respondent, represented the respondent. Both the appellant and Mr Jones gave evidence and were cross-examined by the other person. A Russian interpreter was present throughout the proceedings and assisted the appellant.
The magistrate reserved judgment, which was delivered on 10 May 2018. The magistrate identified and answered the issues as follows:[6]
[6] Magistrates Court ts 10/5/18, 7.
(1)Was there a…

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 Parfenova v Power LEGENDS Pty Ltd 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: [2019] WASCA 168
Decision Date: 25 OCTOBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Parfenova, the plaintiff, and Power LEGENDS Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute centred around a civil contractual issue which was determined as a minor claim in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Parfenova sought to challenge the magistrate's handling of the case, alleging a denial of natural justice. Additionally, Parfenova applied for leave to appeal the decision, and sought an extension of time to file the appellant's case. The court was tasked with deciding whether the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success, and whether an extension of time should be granted to file the appellant's case.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address included whether there was a denial of natural justice in the magistrate's approach to the case, and if the proposed appeal had reasonable prospects of success. The court also considered whether an extension of time should be granted to allow for the filing of the appellant's case. The central concern was whether the magistrate's handling of the case complied with the principles of natural justice, and if the appeal was likely to succeed. Furthermore, the court examined whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time for the appellant's case.

The court concluded that there was no denial of natural justice in the magistrate's handling of the case, as the proceedings were conducted in a fair and transparent manner. It found that the proposed appeal did not have reasonable prospects of success, given the merits of the case and the evidence presented. The court also decided that the application for an extension of time to file the appellant's case was not warranted, as there were no exceptional circumstances that justified such an extension. The court's decision was based on the evidence and arguments presented, and the applicable legal principles.

As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time to file the appellant's case was denied. The decision was final and binding, and there was no further recourse for the plaintiff in this matter. The court's ruling upheld the magistrate's decision and maintained the integrity of the legal process.

Orders