Legal Research
Cases
Poland v Hedley

Poland v Hedley

Case [2024] WASCA 74 24 June 2024

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   POLAND -v- HEDLEY [2024] WASCA 74
CORAM:   MITCHELL JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   21 JUNE 2024
DELIVERED          :   21 JUNE 2024
PUBLISHED           :   24 JUNE 2024
FILE NO/S:   CACV 25 of 2024
BETWEEN:   GREGORY DAVID POLAND
Appellant
AND
KATE HEDLEY
First Respondent
FAIRFAX DIGITAL AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND PTY LTD
Second Respondent
NATHAN JOHN HONDROS
Third Respondent
CLAIRE BRADLEY
Fourth Respondent
DAVID BIRCH
Fifth Respondent
ANDREW WILLIAM HASTIE
Sixth Respondent
ZAK RICHARD FRANCIS KIRKUP
Seventh Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   TOTTLE J
Citation: POLAND -v- HEDLEY [No 6] [2024] WASC 168
File Number            :   CIV 1370 of 2019

Catchwords:

Appeal - Practice and procedure - Appeal against refusal of leave to join additional plaintiffs and leave to amend substituted statement of claim - Leave to appeal - Where appellant is still able to apply to replead or amend extant statement of claim - Leave to appeal refused

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	M L Bennett & A Tharby
First Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt
Second Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt
Third Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt
Fourth Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt
Fifth Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt
Sixth Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt
Seventh Respondent	:	M C Goldblatt

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Bennett
First Respondent	:	Carmel Galati
Second Respondent	:	Carmel Galati
Third Respondent	:	Carmel Galati
Fourth Respondent	:	Carmel Galati
Fifth Respondent	:	Carmel Galati
Sixth Respondent	:	Carmel Galati
Seventh Respondent	:	Carmel Galati

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

Arvind Pty Ltd v Lamers [2020] WASCA 47
Dank v Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2014] NSWCA 288
Dank v Whittaker (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1062
Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27; (2021) 273 CLR 346
Google LLC v Defteros [2022] HCA 27; (2022) 96 ALJR 766
NRW Contracting Pty Ltd v Cliffs Asia Pacific Iron Ore Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 107
Poland v Hedley [2023] WASCA 69
Poland v Hedley [No 5] [2023] WASC 294
Poland v Hedley [No 6] [2024] WASC 168
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 550; (2018) 359 ALR 564
Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 118
Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25; (2018) 263 CLR 149
Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50; (1928) 41 CLR 331
Wright v De Kauwe [No 2] [2024] WASCA 51

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Overview

On 21 June 2024 the court heard the appellant's application for leave to appeal against interlocutory orders made by the General Division of this court on 7 May 2024 in action CIV/1370/2019, following the primary judge's reasons for decision in Poland v Hedley [No 6].[1]
[1] Poland v Hedley [No 6] [2024] WASC 168 (primary reasons).
In the course of oral…

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 Poland v Hedley

Details

AGLC: Poland v Hedley [2024] WASCA 74
Case: [2024] WASCA 74
Decision Date: 24 JUNE 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Poland v Hedley, the dispute arose from the refusal of the respondent to allow the appellant to join additional plaintiffs and amend the statement of claim. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant sought leave to appeal the primary judge's decision, which had dismissed the application to join additional plaintiffs and to amend the substituted statement of claim. The court was required to determine whether the appellant should be granted leave to appeal the decision, considering the appellant's ability to potentially replead or amend the existing statement of claim.

The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was entitled to leave to appeal the primary judge's decision, given that they retained the option to amend their existing statement of claim. The court considered the principles surrounding the grant of leave to appeal, including the need for the appeal to have a reasonable prospect of success and the importance of the matter to the administration of justice. The court also examined whether the appellant's ability to replead or amend the existing statement of claim was a sufficient alternative to the proposed amendments and joinder of additional plaintiffs.

The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, as the appellant could still seek to amend the existing statement of claim. The court noted that the appellant's ability to replead or amend the extant statement of claim provided an adequate alternative to the proposed amendments and joinder of additional plaintiffs. Consequently, the court held that the appellant was not entitled to leave to appeal the primary judge's decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the primary judge were upheld.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the primary judge's decision, which had refused the application to join additional plaintiffs and amend the substituted statement of claim.

Orders