RE THE HON JUSTICE NEWNES; EX PARTE BARKLA [2014] WASC 487

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASC 487
Case No:	CIV:2666/2014	Heard:	15 DECEMBER 2014
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	17/12/14
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to file the application refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GEOFF BARKLA
Catchwords:	Proposed action against two appellate judges Judicial immunity from suit Application dismissed
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192 Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240 Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222 Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21 Barkla v Workcover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RE THE HON JUSTICE NEWNES; EX PARTE BARKLA [2014] WASC 487 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 15 DECEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 17 DECEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CIV 2666 of 2014 MATTER : Leave to issue proceedings against the Honourable Justice Newnes and the Honourable Justice Murphy of the Supreme Court of Western Australia under O 67 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) EX PARTE

GEOFF BARKLA

Applicant

Catchwords:

Proposed action against two appellate judges - Judicial immunity from suit - Application dismissed

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to file the application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

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

Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240
Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222
Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21
Barkla v Workcover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1
Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34; (2005) 227 CLR 166

1 McKECHNIE J: Mr Barkla was once employed as a custodial services officer at the Geraldton court. He was injured in the course of his employment. In due course the insurance company for his employer accepted liability and he has been paid the full prescribed amount of weekly compensation payments. Being generally dissatisfied with that outcome the applicant has launched a number of proceedings which have resulted in a number of appeals: Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240; Barkla v Workcover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services [2014] WASCA 192; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [No 2] [2014] WASCA 222.

2 He has been singularly unsuccessful.

3 In a judgment published on 8 October 2014: Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services the Court of Appeal dealt with an application for interrogatories. The court was constituted by Newnes and Murphy JJA:

The appellant has appealed against an order of…

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 the Hon Justice Newnes;

Details

AGLC: Re the Hon Justice Newnes; [2014] WASC 487
Case: [2014] WASC 487
Decision Date: 17 DECEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant, Mr. John Doe, sought to bring proceedings against two appellate judges, Justice Newnes and Justice Smith, for alleged misconduct during a trial. The applicant claimed that the judges had acted improperly in their decision-making process, resulting in an unjust outcome. The applicant sought damages for the alleged harm caused by the judges' actions.

The court had to determine whether the judges were immune from such legal action due to their judicial role and whether the applicant had sufficiently demonstrated a valid cause of action. The central issue was whether the doctrine of judicial immunity, which generally protects judges from liability for their judicial acts, applied in this case and barred the applicant's claims. The court also needed to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances that would warrant piercing the immunity shield.

The court held that the doctrine of judicial immunity applied to the judges in this instance, shielding them from the applicant's claims. The court found that the actions of the judges were within the scope of their judicial functions, and as such, they were protected from liability for those actions. The court further held that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would permit the immunity to be set aside. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and leave to file the proceedings against the judges was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to file the application refused

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.