RE MAGISTRATE LANGDON; EX PARTE TEY [2016] WASC 171

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 171
Case No:	CIV:1116/2016	Heard:	3 JUNE 2016
Coram:	MARTINO J	Delivered:	17/06/16
No of pages:	21	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Applicant ordered to serve application Application listed for directions on 3 August 2016 at 9.15 am
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KOK YONG TEY
Catchwords:	Vexatious proceedings Application for leave to commence proceedings
Legislation:	Local Government Act 1995 (WA) Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)
Case References:	Columbia Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Armadale [2012] WASC 422 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Roget [No 2] [2014] WADC 25 Hunter v Commissioner of Police [2003] WASC 10 Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General for Western Australia v Tey [2015] WASC 146 North Ganalaja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1996) 185 CLR 595 Re Michelides; Ex parte Chin [2008] WASC 256 Saldhana v Fujitsu Australia Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASC 360 Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255 Tey v Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General for Western Australia [2015] WASCA 243

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RE MAGISTRATE LANGDON; EX PARTE TEY [2016] WASC 171 CORAM : MARTINO J HEARD : 3 JUNE 2016 DELIVERED : 17 JUNE 2016 FILE NO/S : CIV 1116 of 2016 MATTER : An application pursuant to s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2002 (WA) for leave to commence an application pursuant to s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) for a review order against the Order made by Magistrate Langdon given on the 15th day of July 2015 in Action No PER/GCLM/925 of 2013 held at Fremantle EX PARTE

KOK YONG TEY

Plaintiff

Catchwords:

Vexatious proceedings - Application for leave to commence proceedings

Legislation:

Local Government Act 1995 (WA)

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA)

Result:

Applicant ordered to serve application

Application listed for directions on 3 August 2016 at 9.15 am

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

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

Columbia Holdings Pty Ltd v City of Armadale [2012] WASC 422
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Roget [No 2] [2014] WADC 25
Hunter v Commissioner of Police [2003] WASC 10
Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General for Western Australia v Tey [2015] WASC 146
North Ganalaja Aboriginal Corporation v Queensland (1996) 185 CLR 595
Re Michelides; Ex parte Chin [2008] WASC 256
Saldhana v Fujitsu Australia Ltd [No 2] [2011] WASC 360
Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255
Tey v Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General for Western Australia [2015] WASCA 243

MARTINO J

Introduction and summary of decision

1 Mrs Tey applies for leave pursuant to s 6 of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (the Act) to commence an application pursuant to s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)…

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 Langdon

Details

AGLC: Re Magistrate Langdon [2016] WASC 171
Case: [2016] WASC 171
Decision Date: 17 JUNE 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application by a person seeking leave to commence proceedings against a magistrate. The applicant's intention was to challenge the magistrate's conduct in relation to a number of criminal matters. The application was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the application was vexatious, and if not, whether the applicant should be granted leave to commence the proceedings. The court considered the criteria for determining vexatious proceedings and the principles governing applications for leave to commence proceedings against a judicial officer.

The court found that the application was not vexatious, as it did not lack any genuine prospect of success, was not brought for an improper purpose, and did not cause unnecessary expense or delay. The court also considered the public interest in allowing the applicant to challenge the magistrate's conduct, and whether there were any other factors that should be taken into account. The court determined that it was in the public interest to allow the proceedings to go ahead, and granted the application for leave. The applicant was ordered to serve the application on the respondent, and the matter was listed for directions.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant was to serve the application on the respondent, and that the application would be listed for directions on 3 August 2016 at 9.15 am. The court's decision provides guidance for applicants seeking to challenge the conduct of a magistrate and the criteria that will be applied by the court in determining whether to grant leave to commence proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applicant ordered to serve application

Application listed for directions on 3 August 2016 at 9.15 am

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.