Rankilor v Ethiad Airways PJSC - [2018] WADC 144

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   RANKILOR -v- ETHIAD AIRWAYS PJSC [2018] WADC 144
CORAM:   BURROWS DCJ
HEARD:   3 AUGUST 2018
DELIVERED          :   31 OCTOBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   APP 20 of 2018
BETWEEN:   WENDY ANN RANKILOR
Appellant
AND
ETHIAD AIRWAYS PJSC
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE WALTON
File Number             :   PE MINOR 16849 of 2016

Catchwords:

Civil appeal from Magistrates Court ‑ Minor case claim - Allegation of denial of natural justice - Unrepresented litigant - Representation by legal practitioner in minor case - Order made by court in the course of proceedings - Costs - Exceptional circumstances

Legislation:

Civil Aviation (Carriers Liability) Act 1959
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 25, s 28(2), s 30, s 31(3)(a), s 32, s 40

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable

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

Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Ibrahim v the Honourable Justice Carolyn Martin [2012] WASC 338
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Laurent v Armstrong [2015] WADC 101
Lowry v Elliott [2009]WADC 193
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306
R v Small Claims Tribunal; Ex parte Amos [1978] Qd R 127
R v Steffan (1993) 30 NSWLR 633
Rankilor v Circuit Travel [2010] WADC 170
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2011] WADC 230
Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA) [2012] WASC 48

BURROWS DCJ:

This appeal is from the magistrate's decision to allow the respondent to be legally represented at the hearing of an interlocutory application in a minor case and to award costs fixed in the sum of $1,250 in respect of the application.
For the reasons that follow the appeal is dismissed.

Background

On 2 November 2016 the appellant commenced proceedings in the minor case division of the Magistrates Court against the respondent claiming the sum of $7,569.50 for alleged breach of contract. The appellant had purchased an airline ticket with the respondent. She claimed damages for costs, including airfares and accommodation, incurred by her after she was refused boarding on a flight scheduled to depart from the airport in Rome on 3 August 2016.
Proceedings in the minor case division of the Magistrates Court are for claims not more than $10,000 (s 3 and s 26 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (MCCPA). In a minor case, the court is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself in such a manner as it thinks fit: s 29(4) of the MCCPA. With certain limited exception, a party to a minor case is not entitled to legal representation: s 30 of the MCCPA.
The successful party is entitled to an order in relation to 'allowable…

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 Rankilor v Ethiad Airways PJSC 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: [2018] WADC 144
Decision Date: 31 OCTOBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rankilor, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, which had dismissed his claim against Etihad Airways PJSC. The dispute centred around allegations that the airline had denied Rankilor natural justice during proceedings concerning a denied boarding claim. Rankilor, appearing unrepresented, contended that the court had unfairly granted Etihad legal representation while he remained unrepresented. The court had dismissed his claim and ordered him to pay costs.

The central legal issue was whether the court's decision to grant Etihad legal representation while Rankilor remained unrepresented constituted a breach of natural justice. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the order for Rankilor to pay costs was appropriate, considering the circumstances of the case. The appellant argued that the court's actions deprived him of an equal opportunity to present his case.

The court considered that the principles of natural justice were not violated by the court's decision to allow Etihad legal representation. The court found that the granting of legal representation was a procedural matter within its discretion, and Rankilor had not demonstrated how this affected his ability to fairly present his case. Regarding the costs order, the court concluded that it was justified in the context of the minor case proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and the order for costs was upheld. The court did not find the circumstances to be exceptional enough to warrant a deviation from the usual costs order.

Orders