Pierce, William Grenville v Giles, Nuntiya - [1983] FCA 121

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

)

)	No. ACT G77 of 1982

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL

D I V I S I O N

)

ON APPEAL FROM

THE

SUPREHE COURT

OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN :

I*JILLIAFI GRENVILLE PIERCE

Appel lan t

A?JD :	NUNTIYA GILES
__

Respondent

CORAM :

S w e e n e y ,

Kelly &

Neaves

JJ.

DATE :

25 March,

1 9 8 2 .

EX TEMPORE

JUDGMENT

SWEENEY

J .

U n d e r

sect ion

the A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l

T e r r i t o r y S u p r e m e

Court Act

1 9 3 3 provision

may

be made

R u l e s o f

Court

f o r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f

the

c o u r t

t o

be exercisable by the r eg i s t r a r i n such cases and subject

t o such

c o n d i t i o n s as

are s p e c i f i e d m

c h e

R u l e s

Cour t .

Under

sub-section

( 4 )

person dissat isf ied with an order

made

the r eg i s t r a r i n the exe rc i se o f j u r i sd i c t ion

conferred upon him may appeal as prescr ibed by Rules of

Court

t o the cour t cons t i t u t ed

one

judge.

Order 6 Rule 5 ( l ) ( f ) of

those

rules

provides

tha t an appea l under sec t ion 8(4) sha l l be

way

rehear ing

novo of the

appl ica t ion .

E r r .

P ie rce ,

the

defendant in an action brought against

him

i n t h e

Supreme

Court appealed

t o

single judge pursuant to sect ion

8 ( 4 )

and Order

6 1 ,

Rule 5(1) ( f ) against

order for cos ts

made

aga ins t

him

t h e r e g i s t r a r .

H i s Honour

he ld tha t t he r eg i s t r a r

had

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o

make

the order for cos ts

and

sa id : -

"The appeal i s therefore allowed

and the

r e g i s t r a r ' s

o r d e r

f o r

c o s t s

i s

s e t

a s…

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 Pierce, William Grenville v Giles, Nuntiya

Details

AGLC: Pierce, William Grenville v Giles, Nuntiya [1983] FCA 121
Case: [1983] FCA 121
Decision Date: 25 Mar 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pierce, William Grenville v Giles, Nuntiya, the Federal Court of Australia, sitting in the Australian Capital Territory, considered an appeal against an order made by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, William Grenville Pierce, had initially appealed to a single judge of the Supreme Court against an order for costs made by the Registrar, which was subsequently set aside. Pierce then appealed to the Federal Court against the Supreme Court's decision and order of 29 October 1982. The court had to determine whether it should entertain the appeal or dismiss it.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it should proceed with an appeal that was based on a misunderstanding of the proceedings and their stage. The court needed to assess whether the appeal was properly instituted, particularly since the single judge had already initiated a de novo rehearing of the application and had only reached a jurisdictional decision at that point. The court also needed to consider the appropriate course of action regarding the costs of the appeal.

The court found that the appeal was based on a fundamental misconception of the nature of the proceedings and the stage they had reached. The single judge had not yet reached the merits of the case but had only set aside the Registrar's order for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that it should not entertain the appeal but should instead dismiss it, allowing the single judge to complete the hearing. The court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs. Consequently, the order of the court was that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders