QUESTA PTY LTD -v- MILLROCK RESOURCES PTY LTD [2012] WASC 267

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 267
Case No:	GDA:12/2011	Heard:	26 APRIL 2012
Coram:	PRITCHARD J	Delivered:	27/07/12
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	QUESTA PTY LTD MILLROCK RESOURCES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA) s 3(1) 'Retail shop lease' Existence of Turns on own facts State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) s 105(2) Leave to appeal Questions of fact and law Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA) Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Regulations 1985 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)
Case References:	Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Hardingham [2011] WASCA 262 Chin v Legal Practice Board Western Australia [2009] WASCA 117 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337 Gerraty v McGavin (1914) 18 CLR 152 McCourt v Cranston [2012] WASCA 60 Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 128 Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board (2007) 33 WAR 361 Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331 Shire of Derby-West Kimberley v Yungngora Association Inc [2007] WASCA 233 Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165 Town of Cottesloe v Multiplex (Marine Parade) Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 113 Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439 Western Export Services Inc v Jireh International Pty Ltd (2011) 282 ALR 604

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : QUESTA PTY LTD -v- MILLROCK RESOURCES PTY LTD [2012] WASC 267 CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : 26 APRIL 2012 DELIVERED : 27 JULY 2012 FILE NO/S : GDA 12 of 2011 BETWEEN : QUESTA PTY LTD

Appellant

AND

MILLROCK RESOURCES PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MS L WARD (MEMBER)

File No : CC 1 of 2011

Catchwords:

Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA) s 3(1) - 'Retail shop lease' - Existence of - Turns on own facts

State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) s 105(2) - Leave to appeal - Questions of fact and law - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA)

Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Regulations 1985 (WA)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Aristei

Respondent : Mr L Hager

Solicitors:

Appellant : Irdi Legal

Respondent : Metaxas & Hager

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

Chief Executive Officer, Department for Child Protection v Hardingham [2011] WASCA 262
Chin v Legal Practice Board Western Australia [2009] WASCA 117
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Gerraty v McGavin (1914) 18…

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 Questa Pty Ltd v Millrock Resources 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: [2012] WASC 267
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Questa Pty Ltd, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision of the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia, which was made in favour of Millrock Resources Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred on the existence of a retail shop lease under the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA), and the subsequent refusal of the Tribunal to grant leave to appeal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in determining the existence of a retail shop lease and in denying leave to appeal, while the respondent maintained the correctness of the Tribunal's findings.

The key legal issues for the court were whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the definition of a 'retail shop lease' as per section 3(1) of the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985 (WA), and whether the Tribunal had erred in refusing leave to appeal under section 105(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The court needed to determine if the Tribunal's findings were based on factual errors or a misunderstanding of the applicable law.

The court found that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the 'retail shop lease' definition and in its application of the relevant legal principles. The court held that the Tribunal's findings were based on factual errors and a misunderstanding of the law. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the Tribunal's decision, thereby granting the appellant leave to appeal. This decision highlights the importance of accurately interpreting statutory provisions and applying the correct legal principles when determining the existence of a retail shop lease under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.