RE HIS HONOUR JUDGE CURTHOYS; EX PARTE CRISTOVAO [2012] WASC 251

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2012] WASC 251
Case No:	CIV:1614/2012	Heard:	4 JULY 2012
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	4/07/12
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO JOHN HORTON & ASSOCIATES T/AS TAYLOR WOODGATE PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Application seeking review of District Court judgments Inappropriate process Appeal only remedy
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Cristovao v John Horton & Associates t/as Taylor Woodgate Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 12(S)

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RE HIS HONOUR JUDGE CURTHOYS; EX PARTE CRISTOVAO [2012] WASC 251 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 4 JULY 2012 DELIVERED : 4 JULY 2012 FILE NO/S : CIV 1614 of 2012 MATTER : Appeal against the interlocutory judgment of His Honour DCJ Curthoys in District Court Appeal 14 of 2011

and

In the matter of the appeal against the decision of Her Honour DCJ Sweeney

EX PARTE

ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO

Applicant

AND

JOHN HORTON & ASSOCIATES T/AS TAYLOR WOODGATE PTY LTD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Application seeking review of District Court judgments - Inappropriate process - Appeal only remedy

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

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

Cristovao v John Horton & Associates t/as Taylor Woodgate Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 12(S)

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: The applicant has filed a notice of originating motion for leave to appeal decisions of two District Court judges and what is said to be jurisdictional errors of the Court of Appeal in Cristovao v John Horton & Associates t/as Taylor Woodgate Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 12(S). Grounds are set out, which I do not need to reproduce.

2 The decision of the Court of Appeal is a final judgment and cannot be reopened by this process.

3 That appeal was against the decision of Curthoys DCJ and despite the applicant's lengthy affidavit, he does not annexe a copy of the decision of Sweeney DCJ, the other District Court judge about whom he complains. However, that is relatively unimportant because any decision made by her can only be challenged in the Court of Appeal and following the rules of that court. This application manifestly does not. The applicant concedes this is so. It is an abuse of process and in any event vexatious.

4 The application is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application seeking review of judgments made by His Honour Judge Curthoys in the District Court. The application was brought by a party aggrieved by the District Court's decisions, which they deemed to have been reached through an inappropriate process. The applicant sought a review of these judgments, arguing that the process employed by the District Court was flawed and had resulted in an unjust outcome. The court was tasked with determining whether the application for review was valid and, if so, what remedy should be granted.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the application for review was valid and, if so, what remedy should be provided. The court had to consider whether the application was appropriately brought under the relevant statutory provisions and whether the process employed by the District Court was indeed flawed. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether a review was the appropriate remedy, or if an appeal was the only available and suitable course of action. The court also had to consider the principles of finality and the separation of powers in its reasoning.

The court found that the application for review was not valid as it failed to meet the requirements of the statutory provisions. The court held that the proper remedy for the applicant was to appeal the District Court's judgments, as the review process was not an appropriate means of addressing the concerns raised. The court emphasised the importance of the separation of powers and the principle of finality in its reasoning, noting that an appeal was the only remedy available to address the alleged procedural flaws. Consequently, the application for review was dismissed.

The court dismissed the application for review and ordered that no further action be taken in relation to the review. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the proper legal processes and highlighted the limited circumstances in which a review of a court's judgment may be appropriate. The court's dismissal of the application reinforced the principle that appeals are the primary means of addressing concerns about the procedural fairness of a court's decision.

Re His Honour Judge Curthoys;

RE HIS HONOUR JUDGE CURTHOYS; EX PARTE CRISTOVAO [2012] WASC 251

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established