Pritchard v Fryer - [2018] NSWSC 160

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pritchard v Fryer [2018] NSWSC 160
Hearing dates: 1 February 2018
Decision date: 22 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
1. The Summons is dismissed.
2. The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs.

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – judicial review - appeal from Local Court - whether Local Court denied the plaintiff procedural fairness – dismissal of Statement of Claim in the absence of the plaintiff.
Legislation Cited: Local Court Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases Cited: He v Hecker [2013] NSWSC 1219
Escobar v Spindaleri (1986) 7 NSWLR 51
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Pritchard (Plaintiff)
Gregory Fryer (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
In person (Plaintiff)
P Sharrock (Defendant)
Solicitors:
In person (Plaintiff)
In person (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/200426
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court of New South Wales

Date of Decision:

6 June 2017

Before:

Keogh LCM

File Number(s):

2016/343068

Judgment

HER HONOUR: By Summons filed on 3 July 2017, Andrew Ronald Pritchard, the plaintiff, seeks an order that the decision of Keogh LCM of 6 June 2017 dismissing the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim dated 16 November 2016 be set aside. He also seeks an order that her Honour’s order that he pay the defendant’s costs be set aside.
An appeal to this Court against a judgment of the Local Court is as of right, but only on a question of law (Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) s 39(1)). The plaintiff contends that in dismissing the Statement of Claim he was denied procedural fairness.
It is trite to observe that the requirements of procedural fairness apply to proceedings in the Local Court. In respect of an appeal from a Magistrate to this Court, Harrison AsJ in He v Hecker [2013] NSWSC 1219 at [28], observed:

The contents of the requirements of natural justice or procedural fairness are not fixed but they involve a duty to act judicially, deal with the matter for decision without bias, give each party the opportunity of adequately presenting its case, observe the procedural and other rules provided for in the relevant statute and come to its decision with that sense of responsibility that is the necessary accompaniment of the duty to do justice. See Wakim v Mathiew Pty Ltd t/as Dove Migration Services [2002] NSWSC 405.

A denial of procedural fairness is an error of law: Escobar v Spindaleri (1986) 7 NSWLR 51.
The Summons identifies three grounds by reason of which the plaintiff claims he was denied procedural fairness. Those grounds are set out at [23] below.
At the hearing the plaintiff also claimed that he was ill on 6 June 2017 and did not attend the Court on that day for that reason as a further basis for the relief sought.
The question whether the plaintiff’s claim of ill-health or any of the grounds identified in the Summons as constituting a denial of procedural fairness are supported by the evidence or…

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 Pritchard v Fryer

Details

AGLC: Pritchard v Fryer [2018] NSWSC 160
Case: [2018] NSWSC 160
Decision Date: 22 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pritchard v Fryer involved a dispute over the dismissal of a Statement of Claim in the Local Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Pritchard, appealed against the Local Court's decision, arguing that it had denied procedural fairness by dismissing his claim in his absence. The Local Court had found that the plaintiff had failed to attend the hearing, and as such, the case was dismissed. The matter was brought before the court for judicial review to determine whether the Local Court's decision was lawful, correct, and reasonable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Local Court had denied procedural fairness to the plaintiff by dismissing his Statement of Claim in his absence. The plaintiff contended that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard, and as such, the dismissal was unlawful. The court had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and whether they had been observed in the circumstances of the case. The court also had to assess whether the Local Court had the power to dismiss the claim without the plaintiff's presence and whether any procedural error was material to the outcome.

The court found that the Local Court had indeed denied procedural fairness to the plaintiff by dismissing the claim in his absence. The court held that the plaintiff had a right to be heard before his claim was dismissed, and the absence of an opportunity to be heard was a breach of procedural fairness. The court also found that the Local Court did not have the inherent jurisdiction to dismiss a claim without the plaintiff's presence, and as such, the dismissal was unlawful. The court quashed the Local Court's decision and remitted the matter back to the Local Court for further proceedings.

Orders