Re His Honour Judge Curthoys;
[2012] WASC 251
•4 JULY 2012
RE HIS HONOUR JUDGE CURTHOYS; EX PARTE CRISTOVAO [2012] WASC 251
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASC 251 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1614/2012 | 4 JULY 2012 | |
| Coram: | McKECHNIE J | 4/07/12 | |
| 3 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| 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
and
In the matter of the appeal against the decision of Her Honour DCJ Sweeney
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.
0