QUINLIVAN -v- NORRIS [No 2] [2014] WADC 172
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2014] WADC 172 | |
| Case No: | APP:56/2013 | 31 OCTOBER 2014 | |
| Coram: | SCHOOMBEE DCJ | 18/12/14 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Certificate of taxation set aside | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LYNETTE PATRICIA QUINLIVAN CARMEL PATRICIA NORRIS MARK STEPHEN NORRIS |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure District Court's implied jurisdiction to set aside certificate of taxation Whether proper notice given of taxation hearing Where party provided address for service, notice needs to be given at that address No implied consent to receive service of notice by email Fundamental breach of natural justice where party not given reasonable opportunity to attend a hearing Reason for lack of notice, delay, merits of case and prejudice to respondent, all relevant factors in exercise of direction whether to set aside |
Legislation: | Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 66 r 35 |
Case References: | Bellaire Pty Ltd v Roselink Enterprises Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 142 Brennan v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (2011) 83 NSWLR 23 Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571 Durney v Deakin University [2014] VSC 577 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 Hoskins v Van Den-Braak (1998) 43 NSWLR 290 Keyside Investments (WA) Pty Ltd v Quartz Water Leonora Pty Ltd [2001] WASCA 156 Legal Practice Board v Frichot [2006] WASC 230 (S) Mossensons (a firm) v Coastline Associates (Unreported WASCA, Library No 970661, 2 December 1997) Murcia & Associates (a firm) v Grey (2001) 25 WAR 209 Taylor v Taylor (1979) 143 CLR 1 Thorne v Thorne [1979] 1 WLR 659 Vacuum Oil Co Pty Ltd v Stockdale (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 239 |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
CARMEL PATRICIA NORRIS
First Respondent
MARK STEPHEN NORRIS
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - District Court's implied jurisdiction to set aside certificate of taxation - Whether proper notice given of taxation hearing - Where party provided address for service, notice needs to be given at that address - No implied consent to receive service of notice by email - Fundamental breach of natural justice where party not given reasonable opportunity to attend a hearing - Reason for lack of notice, delay, merits of case and prejudice to respondent, all relevant factors in exercise of direction whether to set aside
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 66 r 35
Result:
Certificate of taxation set aside
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D J Garnsworthy
First Respondent : Mr J Eastoe
Second Respondent : Mr J Eastoe
Solicitors:
Appellant : Mr D J Garnsworthy
First Respondent : Jonathan Eastoe
Second Respondent : Jonathan Eastoe
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Bellaire Pty…
Continue reading Quinlivan v Norris [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Quinlivan v Norris [No 2] [2014] WADC 172
- Case
- [2014] WADC 172
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter in Quinlivan v Norris [No 2] involved a dispute concerning the District Court's authority to overturn a certificate of taxation. The primary issue was whether the appropriate notice was provided for the taxation hearing, particularly whether notice was delivered to the correct address for service. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to the address specified for service, emphasising that no implied consent exists for receiving service of notice via email. The court found that the failure to provide notice constituted a fundamental breach of natural justice, as it deprived the party of a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing. This determination hinged on several factors, including the reason for the lack of notice, the delay in addressing the issue, the merits of the case, and the prejudice to the respondent.
The court was tasked with deciding the extent of the District Court's implied jurisdiction to nullify a certificate of taxation and whether the procedure followed in this case complied with fundamental principles of natural justice. It was necessary to assess whether the respondent had been given proper notice of the taxation hearing in accordance with their specified address for service. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the absence of notice constituted a significant enough breach of natural justice to warrant setting aside the certificate of taxation. This involved examining the implications of the delay in noticing the issue, the merits of the case, and the extent of any prejudice caused to the respondent.
In addressing these issues, the court concluded that the notice provided was insufficient as it failed to reach the respondent at their designated address for service. The court emphasised that there was no implied consent to receive such notices via email. Furthermore, the court found that the lack of notice represented a fundamental breach of natural justice, as it denied the respondent a fair opportunity to attend the hearing. The court considered multiple factors, including the reasons behind the failure to provide notice, the delay in recognising the issue, the case's merits, and the prejudice suffered by the respondent. Ultimately, the court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the certificate of taxation, recognising the significant breach of natural justice and the resultant prejudice to the respondent.
The final order in Quinlivan v Norris [No 2] was the setting aside of the certificate of taxation. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to specified addresses for service and the fundamental nature of natural justice in legal proceedings. The court's ruling reflected a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, ultimately concluding that the fundamental breach of natural justice and the prejudice to the respondent warranted the exercise of the court's jurisdiction to nullify the certificate of taxation.
The court was tasked with deciding the extent of the District Court's implied jurisdiction to nullify a certificate of taxation and whether the procedure followed in this case complied with fundamental principles of natural justice. It was necessary to assess whether the respondent had been given proper notice of the taxation hearing in accordance with their specified address for service. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the absence of notice constituted a significant enough breach of natural justice to warrant setting aside the certificate of taxation. This involved examining the implications of the delay in noticing the issue, the merits of the case, and the extent of any prejudice caused to the respondent.
In addressing these issues, the court concluded that the notice provided was insufficient as it failed to reach the respondent at their designated address for service. The court emphasised that there was no implied consent to receive such notices via email. Furthermore, the court found that the lack of notice represented a fundamental breach of natural justice, as it denied the respondent a fair opportunity to attend the hearing. The court considered multiple factors, including the reasons behind the failure to provide notice, the delay in recognising the issue, the case's merits, and the prejudice suffered by the respondent. Ultimately, the court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the certificate of taxation, recognising the significant breach of natural justice and the resultant prejudice to the respondent.
The final order in Quinlivan v Norris [No 2] was the setting aside of the certificate of taxation. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to specified addresses for service and the fundamental nature of natural justice in legal proceedings. The court's ruling reflected a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, ultimately concluding that the fundamental breach of natural justice and the prejudice to the respondent warranted the exercise of the court's jurisdiction to nullify the certificate of taxation.
Orders
Orders of the court
Certificate of taxation set aside
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.