RE MAGISTRATE E A HAMILTON; EX PARTE THE HOUSING AUTHORITY [2015] WASC 76

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 76
Published:	27/02/2015
Case No:	CIV:1083/2015	Heard:	25 FEBRUARY 2015
Coram:	MITCHELL J	Delivered:	25/02/15
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Review order discharged
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Catchwords:	Residential tenancy Application to terminate social housing tenancy agreement Review order of magistrate's decision Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 75A
Case References:	Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] HCA 14; (2012) 246 CLR 92 Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194 Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Finance Facilities Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 127 CLR 106 Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214 Leach v The Queen [2007] HCA 3; (2007) 230 CLR 1 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 Re Chief Magistrate Heath; Ex parte Lawrence [2014] WASC 130 Re Gluestein; Ex parte Anthony [2014] WASC 381

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : RE MAGISTRATE E A HAMILTON; EX PARTE THE HOUSING AUTHORITY [2015] WASC 76 CORAM : MITCHELL J HEARD : 25 FEBRUARY 2015 DELIVERED : 25 FEBRUARY 2015 PUBLISHED : 27 FEBRUARY 2015 FILE NO/S : CIV 1083 of 2015 MATTER : Application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36 for a review order against Magistrate Elizabeth Hamilton of the Magistrates Court at Bunbury EX PARTE

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY

Applicant

Catchwords:

Residential tenancy - Application to terminate social housing tenancy agreement - Review order of magistrate's decision - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 75A

Result:

Review order discharged

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr D H Solomon

Interested Party : Mr S Vandongen SC

Solicitors:

Applicant : Solomon Brothers

Interested Party : Tenancy WA

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

Baiada Poultry Pty Ltd v The Queen [2012] HCA 14; (2012) 246 CLR 92
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163
Finance Facilities Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1971) 127 CLR 106
Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214
Leach v The Queen [2007] HCA 3; (2007) 230 CLR 1
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Re Chief Magistrate Heath; Ex parte Lawrence [2014] WASC 130
Re Gluestein; Ex parte Anthony [2014] WASC 381

1 MITCHELL J:

2 On 2 February 2015 McKechnie J made a review order, on the application of the Housing Authority, pursuant to s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). The review order related to a decision of the Magistrates Court of Western…

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 Magistrate E A Hamilton 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: [2015] WASC 76
Decision Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, the applicant, a resident of a social housing property, sought a review of a magistrate's decision to terminate the social housing tenancy agreement. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and should be quashed. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues involved whether the magistrate's decision was unreasonable, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to discharge the review order. The applicant contended that the magistrate had failed to properly consider the evidence and circumstances of the case. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the magistrate's decision was well-founded and should be upheld.

The court found that the magistrate's decision was not unreasonable and that the evidence supported the termination of the tenancy agreement. The court held that the magistrate had considered all relevant factors and applied the appropriate legal standards in making the decision. The court further found that there were no grounds to discharge the review order. Consequently, the court discharged the review order, upholding the magistrate's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Review order discharged

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.