Re Magistrate T Darge; Ex parte Bajaj

In this case, the applicant, Mr Bajaj, sought a review order in relation to a decision made by Magistrate Darge, and subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Mr Bajaj claimed that he was aggrieved by certain aspects of the decision and sought to challenge it on the basis of alleged procedural unfairness. The court was required to decide whether a review order should be made under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The court considered that the application for leave to appeal was misconceived, as it was not an appropriate avenue for challenging the decision in question. However, the court proceeded to consider whether a review order should be made. The court found that there appeared to be an arguable case that Mr Bajaj was denied procedural fairness in relation to two specific matters, namely communications between the Magistrates Court and the tenants that Mr Bajaj may not have been privy to. The court held that, on the material currently available, there was a sufficient arguable case for a review order to be made in relation to these matters.

The court ultimately decided to make a review order in relation to the two matters identified above. The review order required the Magistrates Court and any person affected by the decision to satisfy the Supreme Court at a hearing that the decision should or should not be set aside. The court noted that this was an ex parte application and that it had only considered the material put forward by Mr Bajaj. However, the court found that there appeared to be an arguable case for a review order to be made on the basis of the material currently available.

The court made a review order in relation to two specific matters relating to communications between the Magistrates Court and the tenants. The court found that there appeared to be an arguable case that Mr Bajaj was denied procedural fairness in these respects, and that a review order should be made to ensure that justice is done. The review order required the Magistrates Court and any person affected by the decision to satisfy the Supreme Court at a hearing that the decision should or should not be set aside.