RE GLYNN; EX PARTE ROYLE & ORS [2003] WASCA 122

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 122
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	CIV:2364/2002	Heard:	13 MAY 2003
Coram:	MURRAY J WHEELER J MCKECHNIE J	Delivered:	13/06/03
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES WILLIAM ROYLE CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROYLE PATRICIA WENDY ROYLE GUY ROYLE PERSONS INTERESTED
Catchwords:	Leases and licences Residential tenancies Whether agreement for holiday purposes Whether within the Residential Tenancies Act Prerogative writs Excess of jurisdiction Whether prohibition will lie Courts and Judges Small disputes division Whether rules of evidence apply
Legislation:	Local Courts Act 1904 (WA) Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 5(2)(e), s 5(5), s 15, s 26(2), s 32
Case References:	Buchmann v May [1978] 2 All ER 993 Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Roberts, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960530; 19 September 1996 Horford Investments Ltd v Lambert [1976] Ch 39 Palser v Grinling [1948] AC 291 Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147; [1969] 1 All ER 208; [1969] 2 WLR 163 Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Malaysian Airline System v Wood [1985] WAR 294 Public Service Association (SA) v Federated Clerks Union of Australia (1991) 173 CLR 132

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RE GLYNN; EX PARTE ROYLE & ORS [2003] WASCA 122 CORAM : MURRAY J

WHEELER J

MCKECHNIE J

HEARD : 13 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 13 JUNE 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 2364 of 2002 MATTER : Application for a Writ of Certiorari and a Writ of Prohibition against ROBERT MAURICE McMAHON GLYNN SM, ALBANY EX PARTE

JAMES WILLIAM ROYLE

CHRISTOPHER JAMES ROYLE

PATRICIA WENDY ROYLE

GUY ROYLE

Applicants

Catchwords:

Leases and licences - Residential tenancies - Whether agreement for holiday purposes - Whether within the Residential Tenancies Act - Prerogative writs - Excess of jurisdiction - Whether prohibition will lie - Courts and Judges - Small disputes division - Whether rules of evidence apply

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Local Courts Act 1904 (WA)

Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 5(2)(e), s 5(5), s 15, s 26(2), s 32

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicants : Mr P G McGowan

Persons interested : Mr S K Shepherd

Solicitors:

Applicants : Paiker & Overmeire

Persons interested : Mallesons Stephen Jaques

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

Buchmann v May [1978] 2 All ER 993
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Roberts, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960530; 19 September 1996
Horford Investments Ltd v Lambert [1976] Ch 39
Palser v Grinling [1948] AC 291

Case(s) also cited:

Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147; [1969] 1 All ER 208; [1969] 2 WLR 163
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Malaysian Airline System v Wood [1985] WAR 294

(Page 3)

Public Service Association…

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 Re Glynn;

Details

AGLC: Re Glynn; [2003] WASCA 122
Case: [2003] WASCA 122
Decision Date: 13 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Re Glynn revolved around the interpretation of a written agreement between the parties and its implications under the Residential Tenancies Act. The dispute involved the appellant, who leased a property to the respondent for holiday purposes. The respondent subsequently claimed the agreement was a licence rather than a lease, arguing it was exempt from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act. The appellant, on the other hand, maintained that the agreement constituted a lease and sought to enforce its terms under the Act.

The central legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether the written agreement was a lease or a licence, and if it fell within the purview of the Residential Tenancies Act. Additionally, the court had to determine whether a prerogative writ of prohibition was appropriate in this context, given the appellant's argument that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to apply the correct legal principles. The court also needed to consider whether the rules of evidence applicable in the Small Disputes Division of the tribunal were correctly applied.

The court found that the written agreement was indeed a lease under the Residential Tenancies Act, and the tribunal had erred in classifying it as a licence. The tribunal had thus exceeded its jurisdiction by not applying the correct legal principles. The court concluded that prohibition was an appropriate remedy in this instance, as the tribunal had made a clear error of law. Furthermore, the court determined that the tribunal had not erred in its application of the rules of evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.