Re Magistrate Martin Crawford; Ex Parte McCormack - [2020] WASC 236

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION:   RE MAGISTRATE MARTIN CRAWFORD; EX PARTE McCORMACK [2020] WASC 236
CORAM:   HILL J
HEARD:   4 JUNE 2020
DELIVERED          :   24 JUNE 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1456 of 2020
MATTER:   An application under the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) s 36 for a review order against Magistrate Martin Crawford of the Magistrates Court at Perth

EX PARTE
CAITLIN McCORMACK
Applicant

Catchwords:

Application for review under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) - Application for judicial review - Residential tenancy - Where notice of termination found to be retaliatory in part - Factors relevant to discretion of magistrate in exercising discretion whether to terminate lease - Whether magistrate erred in dismissing claim for compensation - No jurisdictional error demonstrated

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 15, s 71
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 56

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant

In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant

In Person

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

Ashwin v Housing Authority [2019] WASC 144
Caratti v Mammoth Investments Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 84; (2016) 50 WAR 84
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re Brian Charles Gluestein; Ex parte Anthony [2014] WASC 381
Re Magistrate G Benn; Ex parte Gethin [2019] WASC 380
Re Magistrate Raelene Natasha Johnston; Ex parte Wallam [2017] WASC 226
Re Magistrate Steven Malley; Ex parte the Housing Authority [2017] WASC 193

HILL J:

On 31 March 2020, the applicant filed an application for review of a decision made on 19 February 2020 to terminate the lease of the applicant and her brother and requiring them to deliver up vacant possession on 15 March 2020. On 22 April 2020, the applicant filed amended grounds of application.
The application is made under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) and O 56A of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (Rules). Under O 56A r 2 of the Rules, the application was heard ex parte on 4 June 2020.
The grounds for the application are, in essence, that:
(a)the magistrate made a jurisdictional error in misconstruing the jurisdiction under s 71(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) (Act) in finding that the termination of the lease was justified in all the circumstances when the notice of termination was served on the basis of no grounds and not for breach of the lease; and
(b)in dismissing the application by the applicant for compensation and other orders, the magistrate found that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of s 32 of the Act when no application had been brought under that section.
The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the learned magistrate on 19 February 2020, together with orders for writs of certiorari and mandamus to issue.

Factual background

The applicant relies on four affidavits which have been filed in the proceedings, being affidavits dated 10 April 2020, 21 April…

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 Martin Crawford; Ex Parte McCormack 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: [2020] WASC 236
Decision Date: 24 JUNE 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Re Magistrate Martin Crawford; Ex Parte McCormack, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate in relation to a residential tenancy dispute. The applicant argued that the notice of termination of their lease was retaliatory and sought compensation for the loss of their tenancy. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which exercised its supervisory jurisdiction over the decisions of the Magistrates Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate had erred in dismissing the applicant's claim for compensation. The applicant argued that the magistrate had failed to consider relevant factors when exercising their discretion to determine whether to terminate the lease. Specifically, the applicant contended that the magistrate had not adequately considered the impact of the termination on their personal circumstances, including their employment and housing situation. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the magistrate had properly exercised their discretion and that there was no evidence of jurisdictional error.

In determining the matter, the court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law relating to the exercise of discretion by magistrates in residential tenancy matters. The court found that the magistrate had considered the relevant factors in making their decision and had not erred in dismissing the applicant's claim for compensation. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any jurisdictional error on the part of the magistrate and that the decision was therefore not subject to judicial review.

As a result of the court's decision, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court found that the magistrate had properly exercised their discretion in determining whether to terminate the lease and that there was no evidence of jurisdictional error. The court did not make any orders in relation to the applicant's claim for compensation, as it found that the magistrate had adequately considered the relevant factors in making their decision. Overall, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all relevant factors when exercising discretion in residential tenancy matters.

Orders