Re Young; - [2015] WASC 264

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RE YOUNG; EX PARTE BINZER [2015] WASC 264

CORAM: BEECH J

HEARD: 3 JULY 2015

DELIVERED : 27 JULY 2015

FILE NO/S: CIV 1297 of 2015
EX PARTE
JOSIAH JOHN BINZER
Applicant
AND
MAGISTRATE ROBERT YOUNG
Respondent

Catchwords:

Judicial review - Jurisdictional error - Application for review under s 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) - Magistrates decision under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) - Whether magistrate made orders without jurisdiction or power

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 36
Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), s 26, s 60

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr C Baker
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant: Pilbara Community Legal Service
Respondent: No appearance

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

Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163
Gedeon v Commissioner of the NSW Crime Commission [2008] HCA 43; (2008) 236 CLR 120
Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531
Rayney v AW [2009] WASCA 203
Re Carey; Ex parte Exclude Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] WASCA 219; (2006) 32 WAR 501
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Cohen [2001] HCA 10; (2001) 75 ALJR 542
Re Refugee Tribunal; ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82
Re The State Administrative Tribunal; Ex parte McCourt [2007] WASCA 125; (2007) 34 WAR 342
BEECH J:

Introduction

This is an application for review of a magistrate's decision made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA). The ground of the application is that the learned magistrate made orders 'without jurisdiction or power'. For the reasons that follow, the application must be dismissed because the applicant has failed to establish that the magistrate made any jurisdictional error.

Background

The magistrate's decision concerned a residential tenancy agreement (the Agreement) relating to a unit in Bulgarra (the Premises). On 25 July 2013, the applicant and another person entered into the Agreement with the owner of the Premises, Maru Pty Ltd (the Landlord). In late August 2013, the applicant's co‑tenant vacated the Premises. The Agreement was subsequently amended to remove the co‑tenant and the bond was transferred to the applicant as sole tenant.
On 6 February 2014, the applicant's brother contacted the Landlord on the applicant's behalf. He advised the Landlord that the applicant could no longer pay rent and had vacated the Premises. The Landlord subsequently sent the applicant letters requiring a written notice of termination, informing him that a new tenant was being sought, and reminding him of his continuing obligations under the Agreement.[1]
[1] Affidavit of J J Binzer sworn 2 April 2015, Annexures A ‑ C.
On 24 February 2014, the Landlord changed the locks on the Premises and removed the applicant's furnishings and belongings.
Between 6 February 2014 and 24 February 2014, the Landlord did not give any written…

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 Young;

Details

AGLC: Re Young; [2015] WASC 264
Case: [2015] WASC 264
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re Young, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by a magistrate under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA). The dispute centred on whether the magistrate had the authority to make the orders in question. The application for review was lodged under section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), with the decision being made by a single judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the magistrate had acted without jurisdiction or power when making the orders. The applicant argued that the magistrate had exceeded their authority by making orders that were not authorised by the Act, or were not supported by the evidence presented. The respondent contended that the magistrate had acted within their jurisdiction and that the orders were properly made.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the statutory framework and the principles of judicial review. The court noted that the magistrate had discretion under the Act to make orders in certain circumstances, but that this discretion was not unlimited. The court found that the magistrate had acted without jurisdiction or power in making the orders, as they were not authorised by the Act and were not supported by the evidence. The court also found that the magistrate had failed to consider relevant factors and had made errors in law. The court accordingly allowed the application for judicial review and quashed the orders made by the magistrate.

The final orders of the court included quashing the orders made by the magistrate and remitting the matter back to the Magistrates Court for reconsideration. The court also made orders as to costs.

Orders