Rahman v Edward T David - [2005] NSWSC 1251

CITATION:
Rahman v Edward T David [2005] NSWSC 1251
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 1/12/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

1 December 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
James J at 1

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
Civil Law – appeal from Local Court – decision of an assessor – whether lack of jurisdiction – whether denial of natural justice

LEGISLATION CITED:
Civil Procedure Act
Local Courts Act
Local Court (Civil Claims) Act
Supreme Court Rules
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

CASES CITED:
Wakim v Mathiew Pty Ltd t/a Dove Migration Services [2002] NSWSC 405

PARTIES:
Mohammed Tabibar Rahman v Edward T David & Co Pty Limited t/a Davis Breene Conti (Solicitors)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 011181/05

COUNSEL:
In Person - Plaintiff
J Hogan-Doran - Defendants

SOLICITORS:
Self - Plaintiff
Davis Breene Conti Solicitors - Defendants

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
4859/04

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Mr G Roberts - Assessor

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Progressive List

THURSDAY 1 DECEMBER 2005
011181/05 - MoHAMMED TABIBAR RAHMAN v edwarD t david & co pty limited t/a DAVIS BREENE CONTI (SOLICITORS)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a number of decisions made in the Local Court exercising its civil jurisdiction. The principal decision appealed from is a decision of an assessor, Mr Roberts, made in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court on 7 October 2004.

2 On 7 October 2004 the assessor entered a judgment for the plaintiffs in the Local Court, Edward T Davis & Co Pty Ltd trading as Davis Breene Conti Solicitors, against the defendant in the Local Court, Mr Rahman. The judgment entered was for an amount of $236.78 and the assessor also made an order for costs.

3 Mr Rahman has sought to appeal from the assessor's decision of 7 October 2004, from a decision made in the Local Court on 10 March 2005 refusing an application by Mr Rahman to set aside the judgment of 7 October 2004 and a decision made in the Local Court refusing an application by Mr Rahman to set aside a writ of execution issued by the plaintiff to enforce the judgment of 7 October 2004.

4 In the interests of clarity I will refer to Mr Rahman, who was the defendant in the Local Court and who was the plaintiff on this appeal simply as “Mr Rahman” and I will refer to the other party to the litigation as “the solicitors”.

5 Mr Rahman was not legally represented and appeared for himself in the Local Court and he has acted and appeared for himself on this appeal. In the Local Court the solicitors were represented by Mr Breene, a partner in the firm of solicitors and a director of the company Edward T Davis & Co Pty Ltd. On the hearing of this appeal the solicitors have been represented by counsel.

6 Mr Rahman did…

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 Rahman v Edward T David 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: [2005] NSWSC 1251
Decision Date: 1 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rahman v Edward T David involved an appeal from a Local Court decision regarding an assessment made by an assessor. The dispute centered on the validity of the assessment and whether the court had the jurisdiction to review it. The appellant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the assessment, while the respondent contended that the assessment was flawed and that natural justice was denied. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Local Court had the jurisdiction to review the decision of an assessor and whether the assessment process had complied with the principles of natural justice. The court had to determine if the appeal was properly before it and if the assessment was conducted in a manner that did not prejudice the appellant's rights. The court also needed to assess whether any procedural errors during the assessment process warranted a review of the decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that it had the jurisdiction to review the decision of the Local Court's assessor. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not breached as there was no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness. The assessment process was deemed to be fair and reasonable, and the court concluded that the appellant's rights were not prejudiced. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original decision of the Local Court.

No additional orders were made by the court. The decision of the Local Court was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with the respondent to bear the costs of the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of the proper conduct of assessments and the adherence to principles of natural justice to ensure fairness and transparency in legal proceedings.

Orders