JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: RE GRIFFITHS; EX PARTE HOMESTYLE PTY LTD [2005] WASCA 103
CORAM: ROBERTS-SMITH JA
MCLURE JA
PULLIN JA
HEARD: 18 FEBRUARY 2005
DELIVERED : 3 JUNE 2005
FILE NO/S: CIV 1246 of 2004
MATTER :Application for writ of certiorari against the Honourable NICHOLAS DAVID GRIFFITHS, Minister for Housing and Works, Racing and Gaming, Government Enterprises, Land Information
EX PARTE
HOMESTYLE PTY LTD
Applicant
Catchwords:
Administrative law - Return of order nisi for writ of certiorari - Scope of s 401 of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act - Whether subject to s 12A of Builders' Registration Act - Whether s 401 notice an abuse of process or unreasonable - Whether failure by Minister to comply with rules of natural justice
Legislation:
Builders' Registration Act 1939 (WA), s 12A
Building Regulations 1989 (WA), reg 3, reg 5, reg 11
Home Building Contracts Act 1991 (WA)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 56
Local Government (Appeals to Minister) Regulations 1961 (WA)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA), s 401
State Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction) Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (WA), s 671
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 167
Result:
Order nisi made absolute
Decision of Minister quashed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Mr M C Hotchkin
Amicus Curiae : Mr N C Monahan
Solicitors:
Applicant: Hotchkin Hanly
Amicus Curiae : State Solicitor
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
Dilatte v MacTiernan [2002] WASCA 100
Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1993) 44 FCR 540
Kahn v Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 14 ALD 291
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko‑Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Mosman Park Town Council v Walker (1991) 73 LGRA 30
Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589
R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635
R v O'Halloran (2000) 159 FLR 260
Re City of Melville; Ex parte J-Corp Pty Ltd (1998) 20 WAR 72
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Applicant S20/2002 (2003) 77 ALJR 1165
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212
Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 198
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Alexander Stenhouse Ltd (1997) Aust Torts Reports 81‑423
Telstra Corp Ltd v Kendall (1995) 55 FCR 221
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378
Case(s)…
Continue reading Re Griffiths; Ex parte Homestyle Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Re Griffiths; Ex parte Homestyle Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 103
- Case
- [2005] WASCA 103
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel, along with their criminal law analogues, applied in the context of an improper collateral attack on an earlier decision that had not been set aside. It was also necessary to examine if a party who was not involved in the earlier proceedings could raise or pursue an issue that had been determined between different parties in those earlier proceedings. The court needed to consider the guiding considerations for determining whether an issue should be relitigated, including the importance of the issue, the opportunity to fully litigate it, and the terms and finality of the finding.
The court found that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply in this context, as there was an improper collateral attack on an earlier decision that had not been set aside. The court further held that a party not involved in the earlier proceedings could raise or pursue an issue that had been determined between different parties in those earlier proceedings. The court applied the guiding considerations for determining whether an issue should be relitigated, and found that there was no abuse of process or unreasonableness in the section 401 notice. The court also found that there was no failure by the Minister to comply with the rules of natural justice.
The court made an order that the application for the return of the order nisi for a writ of certiorari be dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
In each of the above situations the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel (and their criminal law analogues) have no application; there is, in effect, an improper collateral attack on an earlier decision that has not been set aside; and the abuse lies in a party to the earlier proceeding seeking to litigate the issue in subsequent proceedings. A party who was not involved in the earlier proceedings is, however, not prevented from raising or pursuing an issue that has been determined between different parties in earlier proceedings: Haines v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1995) 43 NSWLR 404 at 414 per Hunt CJ; R v O'Halloran (2000) 159 FLR 260 at 292 per Heydon J. Where earlier and subsequent proceedings are civil rather than criminal, greater flexibility is apparent in the application of the doctrine. In that situation, Giles CJ in State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Alexander Stenhouse Ltd (1997) Aust Torts Reports 81‑423 at 64,089 said:"… guiding considerations are oppression and unfairness to the other party to the litigation and concern for the integrity of the system of administration of justice, and amongst the matters to which regard may be had are - (a)the importance of the issue in and to the earlier proceedings, including whether it is an evidentiary issue or ultimate issue; (b)the opportunity available and taken to fully litigate the issue; (c)the terms and finality of the finding as to the issue; (d)the identity between the relevant issues in the two proceedings; (e)any plea of fresh evidence, including the nature and significance of the evidence and the reason why it was not part of the earlier proceedings; ... (f)the extent of the oppression and unfairness to the other party if the issue was relitigated and the impact of the relitigation upon the principle of finality of judicial determination and public confidence in the administration of justice; and (g)an overall balancing of justice to the alleged abuser against the matters supportive of abuse of process." It is also to be noted that all the cases to which I have referred concern abuse of the processes of a court in its civil or criminal jurisdiction. The basis of the Court's power to permanently stay proceedings is the inherent power which any court of justice must possess to prevent misuse of its procedure in a way which, although not inconsistent with the literal application of its procedural rules, would nevertheless be manifestly unfair to a party to litigation before it, or would otherwise bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right‑thinking people: Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (supra) at 536 per Lord Diplock; approved in Walton v Gardiner at 593. The High Court in Walton v Gardiner held there was an analogy between the concept of abuse of a court's process and the concept of abuse of a tribunal's process in relation to disciplinary proceedings, in that case a medical tribunal. The question is whether the analogy extends to the consideration and exercise by a decision‑maker of an administrative discretion under s 401(1) where there are no parties or proceedings in the traditional sense.