Rankilor v Etihad Airways PJSC - [2019] WASCA 36

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   RANKILOR -v- ETIHAD AIRWAYS PJSC [2019] WASCA 36
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   18 FEBRUARY 2019
DELIVERED          :   18 FEBRUARY 2019
PUBLISHED           :   18 FEBRUARY 2019
FILE NO/S:   CACV 114 of 2018
BETWEEN:   WENDY ANN RANKILOR
Appellant
AND
ETIHAD AIRWAYS PJSC
Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal from District Court's order dismissing an appeal against an order of the Magistrates Court as to the costs of a minor case - Whether appeal should be struck out on the basis that the likely costs of the appeal would be disproportionate to the nature of the case which is the subject of the appeal - Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to make an order under s 4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 43(3)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 7, s 58
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 4

Result:

Appeal struck out
Respondent's application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Ms E Carlean

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Kennedys (Australasia) Pty Ltd

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

Christovao v John Horton & Associates [2012] WASCA 12
MTI v SUL [2011] WASCA 267
Rankilor v Etihad Airways PJSC [2018] WADC 179
von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Co Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 109; [2005] 1 Qd R 681

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Orders

At the conclusion of the hearing today, we made the following orders in the appeal:
(1)The respondent's application in an appeal filed on 1 February 2019 is dismissed.
(2)The appeal is struck out pursuant to s 43(3) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (MCCP Act).
These are our reasons for making those orders.

Background

On 2 November 2016, the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, claiming $7,569.50 in damages for an alleged breach of contract. The contract, constituted by the appellant's purchase of an airline ticket with the respondent, was allegedly breached when the respondent refused to allow the appellant to board a flight from Rome on or about 3 August 2016. Until February 2018, the case had been dealt with by the Magistrates Court in accordance with the minor case procedure of that court. The court had dealt with a number of disputed interlocutory applications, in which each party achieved some level of success.
The matter was listed for trial in the Magistrates Court on 8 and 9 February 2018. The trial did not proceed, and the court instead dealt with the respondent's application for the matter to be dealt with under the general procedure and for security for costs. The application was made in reliance on s 28(2) of the MCCP Act. Section 28(2) requires the court to order that the minor case be dealt with under the general procedure where the case involves…

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 Etihad 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: [2019] WASCA 36
Decision Date: 18 FEBRUARY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal, Rankilor, the appellant, sought to challenge a decision of the District Court which had dismissed an appeal from an order of the Magistrates Court regarding the costs of a minor case. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal to determine whether the appeal should be struck out on the basis that the anticipated costs of the appeal would be disproportionate to the nature of the case, which is a minor matter. The Court of Appeal also needed to consider its jurisdiction to make an order under section 4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA).

The court examined whether the appeal was likely to be vexatious or an abuse of process given the minor nature of the underlying case. It considered the principles of proportionality in relation to costs and the importance of preventing the abuse of legal process. The court also needed to determine if it had the jurisdiction to make an order under section 4 of the Act, which allows for the imposition of costs in cases deemed vexatious.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was likely to be vexatious given the minor nature of the underlying case and the disproportionate costs associated with the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal was an abuse of process and upheld the District Court's decision to dismiss the appeal. The Court of Appeal also found that it had the jurisdiction to make an order under section 4 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) in this matter.

The court struck out the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay costs of the appeal on an indemnity basis. This decision underscores the importance of proportionality in legal proceedings and the court's role in preventing the abuse of legal process.

Orders