Re Chief Magistrate Steven Heath; - [2014] WASC 130

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RE CHIEF MAGISTRATE STEVEN HEATH; EX PARTE LAWRENCE [2014] WASC 130

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 24 JANUARY 2014

DELIVERED : 24 JANUARY 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 1067 of 2014

MATTER :an application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 s 36 for a review order against Steven Heath, Chief Magistrate of the Magistrates Court at Karratha

EX PARTE
JAZMA LAWRENCE
Applicant

Catchwords:

Courts and judges - Review on the basis of prejudgment - Whether simply exercise of discretion - Factors taken into consideration - Residential tenancy - Whether illegal behaviour - Whether eviction justified

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 75A

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms M L Billeam

Solicitors:

Applicant: Pilbara Community Legal Service

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

Nil

McKECHNIE J: The Department of Housing applied for an eviction order in respect of the Applicant, Jazma Lawrence, at an address in Karratha, WA. Originally the reasons for the application:
This action is in accordance with s 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987. The tenant has failed to deliver up vacant possession of property once termination notice has been issued against tenants.
The matter came on for hearing before the Chief Magistrate on 13 September 2013. By the time the application came on for hearing the Department expanded the application under s 73, s 75A and s 64.
Section 73 relates to termination of the agreement where the tenant is causing serious damage or injury.
The magistrate dismissed the application under s 64 and the application proceeded under s 73 and s 75A.
Some of the evidence which the Department proposed to lead in respect of s 73 was inadmissible hearsay and eventually the application seems to have dropped away.
Section 75A provides:
Termination of social housing tenancy agreement due to objectionable behaviour
(1)A competent court may, upon application by the lessor under a social housing tenancy agreement, terminate the agreement if it is satisfied that the tenant has -
(a)used the social housing premises, or caused or permitted the social housing premises to be used, for an illegal purpose; or
(b)caused or permitted a nuisance by the use of the social housing premises; or
(c)interfered, or caused or permitted any interference, with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises,
and that the behaviour justifies terminating the agreement.
…
(3)In deciding if the behaviour justifies terminating the agreement, or making any order or giving any direction referred to in subsection (2), the court may have regard to whether the behaviour was recurrent and, if it was recurrent, the frequency of the recurrences.
(4)Subsection (3) does not limit the issues to which the court may have regard.
In respect of the application under s 75A the witness, Ms Leadbetter, deposed that a statement was taken from the applicant at the property regarding two drug…

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 Re Chief Magistrate Steven Heath; 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: [2014] WASC 130
Decision Date: 24 JANUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, the Chief Magistrate Steven Heath was the subject of a review application, which was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The review sought to examine whether the Chief Magistrate's decision was made with the appropriate exercise of discretion, particularly in the context of a residential tenancy dispute. The case revolved around the Chief Magistrate's ruling that eviction was justified due to alleged illegal behaviour by the tenant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Chief Magistrate's decision to evict the tenant was a simple exercise of discretion, and if so, whether the factors taken into account were relevant and appropriate. The court needed to determine if the Chief Magistrate had properly considered the legality of the eviction and whether the alleged illegal behaviour was indeed a valid reason for such an action. The review also sought to clarify whether the decision was tainted by any prejudgment on the part of the Chief Magistrate.

The court held that the Chief Magistrate's decision was indeed an exercise of discretion, but it was crucial to ensure that this discretion was exercised in a manner that was fair and just. The court found that the Chief Magistrate had considered the relevant factors, including the alleged illegal behaviour of the tenant. However, the court noted that the Chief Magistrate should have been more explicit in detailing how these factors led to the decision to evict. Despite this, the court concluded that the decision was not prejudged and was ultimately justified based on the evidence presented. The review application was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the review application, affirming the Chief Magistrate's decision to evict the tenant. The court emphasised the importance of discretion in such matters but stressed the need for transparency and explicit reasoning in judicial decisions. The Chief Magistrate's decision was upheld as it was found to be based on appropriate factors and not prejudged, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders