Re Magistrate G Mignacca-Randazzo - [2018] WASC 157

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   RE MAGISTRATE G MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO; EX PARTE CHOWN [2018] WASC 157
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   11 MAY 2018
DELIVERED          :   11 MAY 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1720 of 2018
MATTER:   An application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 section 36 for a review order against Magistrate Giuseppe Mignacca-Randazzo, Magistrate of the Magistrates Court at Armadale.

EX PARTE
SANDRA LEANNE CHOWN
Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Judicial review - Application for review order - Review of Magistrate's decision not to make final restraining order - Whether jurisdictional error - Whether stay of proceedings justified - Meaning of Restraining Order Final Order Directions Hearing

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 3, s 10B, s 24A, s 26, s 27, s 29, s 31,
s 33, s 42, s 64
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 56A

Result:

Application and stay granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff

Mr M Bradley

Solicitors:

Plaintiff

Gosnells Community Legal Centre

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

Abbott v Magistrate Malley [2012] WASC 420
Craig v The State of South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Kickett v Starr [2013] WADC 52
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re Magistrate D Temby; Ex Parte Stanton [2015] WASC 357
Re Magistrate P Roth; Ex Parte Yahiya [2016] WASC 284
Re Potter; Ex parte Coppin [2013] WASC 462
Saldanha v Fujitsu Australia Ltd (No 2) [2011] WASC 360
Stampalia v Racing Penalties Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia [1999] WASC 7
Stewart v City of Belmont [2013] WASC 366

TOTTLE J:

(These reasons were delivered extemporaneously on 11 May 2018 and have been edited from the transcript of that hearing).

Introduction

This is an application brought by an originating motion dated 24 April 2018 for a review order under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act2004 (WA) (Magistrates Court Act), and a stay of the proceedings which are to be held in the Armadale Magistrates Court on 16 May 2018. The decision which is the subject of this application was made by a Magistrate on 4 December 2017 in purported exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Magistrates Court by the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) (Restraining Orders Act). The applicant alleges that she is aggrieved by the learned Magistrate's decision and relies upon both s 36(1)(a)(i) and s 36(1)(b)(i) of the Magistrates Court Act for review of that decision.
For the reasons which follow, I will grant the review order as well as the stay of the proceedings which are to be held in the Armadale Magistrates Court on 16 May 2018.

Legal principles

The jurisdiction of this court to make a review order under the Magistrates Court Act is governed by O 56A of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (Rules of the Supreme Court). As is required by O 56A r 2(1)(a), this application has been brought on…

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 Magistrate G Mignacca-Randazzo

Details

AGLC: Re Magistrate G Mignacca-Randazzo [2018] WASC 157
Case: [2018] WASC 157
Decision Date: 11 MAY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate, G Mignacca-Randazzo, who declined to issue a final restraining order. The applicant sought to challenge this decision, arguing that it constituted a jurisdictional error and warranted a stay of proceedings. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court included determining whether the magistrate's decision to not issue a final restraining order was a jurisdictional error, and if so, whether the proceedings should be stayed pending the resolution of the application for judicial review. The court was also tasked with interpreting the meaning of a "Restraining Order Final Order Directions Hearing" and its implications for the application.

The court examined the magistrate's decision and found that there was no jurisdictional error. The court concluded that the magistrate had acted within their jurisdiction in deciding not to issue a final restraining order. As a result, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed. The court further clarified that the term "Restraining Order Final Order Directions Hearing" referred to a specific procedural step in the context of restraining orders, which did not affect the outcome of this review application.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and no stay of proceedings was granted. The decision of Magistrate G Mignacca-Randazzo not to make a final restraining order was upheld.

Orders