RAYNEY -v- REYNOLDS [2016] WASC 219

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 219
Published:	19/07/2016
Case No:	CIV:1827/2015	Heard:	14 JULY 2016
Coram:	CHANEY J	Delivered:	14/07/16
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Validity of writ extended
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY MARK REYNOLDS
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Extension of validity of writ Test to be applied No new principles
Legislation:	Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 14(2) Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 15 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 7 r 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RAYNEY -v- REYNOLDS [2016] WASC 219 CORAM : CHANEY J HEARD : 14 JULY 2016 DELIVERED : 14 JULY 2016 PUBLISHED : 19 JULY 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 1827 of 2015 BETWEEN : LLOYD PATRICK RAYNEY

Plaintiff

AND

MARK REYNOLDS

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Extension of validity of writ - Test to be applied - No new principles

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA), s 14(2)

Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 15
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 7 r 1

Result:

Validity of writ extended

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr M L Bennett

Defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : Not applicable

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

Brealey v Board of Management Royal Perth Hospital [1999] WASCA 158
Chalmers and Partners v Kensit [2008] WASCA 122

CHANEY J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on Thursday 14 July 2016 and has been edited from transcript.)

1 This matter comes before me as an application for an extension of the validity of a writ which was issued on 2 June 2015. The claim revealed by the endorsement to the writ is a claim for defamation, which is said to have occurred on 3 June 2014 and involves, on its face, a serious imputation.

2 The defendant is a senior investigating forensic officer with the Western Australia Police who was involved in the forensic examination for the purpose of what is known as the Dargan Inquiry, which was an inquiry into the death of the wife of the plaintiff.

3 The writ was issued one day prior to the expiry of the limitation period prescribed by s 15 of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The writ was not then served, although attempts, which I will mention in a moment, were undertaken on 31 May 2016 and 1 June 2016 to effect service.

4 The plaintiff, in an affidavit filed in support of his application, identifies several reasons why it was that he chose to defer service of the writ. Those reasons include that, leading up to a trial between 28 April 2015 and 7 May 2015, his attention was devoted to the defence of the charges dealt with in that trial under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), which charges were ultimately dismissed in the District Court on 7 May 2015.

5 Thereafter,…

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.

Continue reading Rayney v Reynolds

Details

AGLC: Rayney v Reynolds [2016] WASC 219
Case: [2016] WASC 219
Decision Date: 19 JULY 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rayney v Reynolds was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Rayney, sought an extension of the validity of a writ in order to bring a claim against the defendant, Reynolds. The writ had expired, and Rayney sought to have its validity extended to allow the claim to proceed. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the test for granting an extension of the validity of a writ should be reconsidered, or if the existing test should remain unchanged. Rayney argued that the current test was too rigid and did not take into account the unique circumstances of each case.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the existing legal framework governing the extension of the validity of a writ. The court held that there were no new principles to be applied in this matter and that the existing test for granting an extension of the validity of a writ was sufficient. The court found that the test was not overly rigid, but rather was designed to ensure that extensions were only granted in exceptional circumstances. The court also noted that the test required the plaintiff to demonstrate that there were compelling reasons for the extension and that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the delay.

In light of the above, the court decided to extend the validity of the writ in this case. The court found that Rayney had demonstrated that there were compelling reasons for the extension and that Reynolds would not be prejudiced by the delay. The court also noted that the delay in bringing the claim was not due to any fault on the part of Rayney. The court ordered that the validity of the writ be extended for a period of six months, allowing Rayney to bring the claim against Reynolds. The court emphasised that this decision was based on the unique circumstances of this case and that it did not set a new precedent for future cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Validity of writ extended

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.