Reakes v Johnson - [2018] WADC 76

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   REAKES -v- JOHNSON [2018] WADC 76
CORAM:   JUDGE LONSDALE
HEARD:   15 JANUARY 2018
DELIVERED          :   1 JUNE 2018
FILE NO/S:   APP 73 of 2017
BETWEEN:   ROBERT WILLIAM REAKES
Appellant
AND
RICHARD JOHNSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE WALTON
File Number             :   PE GCLM 19332 of 2016

Catchwords:

Magistrates Court - Costs - Costs of litigant in person - Section 25, s 25(9) Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004, s 25, s 25(1), s 25(9), s 40, s 40(4), s 40(4)(b)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	Not applicable

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

Michael v Monitronix Ltd (Unreported, WASC, Library No 920044, 20 February 1992)
R v Lieschke (1987) 162 CLR 447
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
Re Bertini; Ex parte Bertini [No 2] [2010] WASC 86
Re Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306
Sovereign Grange Pty Ltd v AV Truck Services Pty Ltd [No 2] [2016] WADC 73
The Owners of SP 13443, 129-133 Eighth Avenue, Maylands v Owners of 135 Eighth Avenue, Maylands (Survey Strata Plan 44698) [2015] WADC 133
Wainwright v Barrick Gold of Australia Limited [No 2] [2012] WADC 126

JUDGE LONSDALE:

This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of his Honour Magistrate Walton on 21 July 2017 whereby it was ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs in the sum of $1,005.35 pursuant to s 25 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (the MC (CP) Act).

The notice of appeal

The appellant filed a notice of appeal containing three grounds which read as follows:
1.The Appellant appeals order 1 made by the honourable magistrate on 21 July 2017 on the ground that in making the order, the honourable magistrate:
(a)denied the appellant natural justice in that;
(i)the honourable magistrate did not allow the Appellant to fully present oral submissions at the hearing in respect of the number of times the claim of the Respondent in the matter under appeal ('claim') had previously been ventilated before the court by the Respondent; and
(ii)had no, or an adequate regard to the:
(1)affidavit of The Appellant sworn 13 July 2017 in support of his application ('affidavit'); and
(2)the annexures to the affidavit which constituted transcripts and orders demonstrating that the substance of the claim had previously been ventilated before the court on at least three occasions, and dismissed,
when the honourable magistrate properly allowed the Appellant to make full submissions or had proper regard to the affidavit and its annexures, the honourable magistrate would have found that:
2.The claim was either subject to res judicata; an abuse of the process of the court; or both; and justified the magistrate ordering that the Respondent pay the Appellant for the time spent by the…

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 Reakes v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Reakes v Johnson [2018] WADC 76
Case: [2018] WADC 76
Decision Date: 1 JUNE 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Magistrates Court of Victoria, the case of Reakes v Johnson revolved around a dispute concerning the costs incurred by a litigant who chose to represent themselves without legal counsel. The plaintiff, Reakes, sought to recover certain costs from the defendant, Johnson, who had been ordered to pay those costs in a previous proceeding. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrates Court had the authority to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, given that the plaintiff had represented themselves in the original proceedings. This issue hinged on the interpretation of Section 25 and Section 25(9) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004.

The court meticulously examined the statutory provisions to ascertain whether the legislature had intended to exclude the possibility of awarding costs to a self-represented party. The court noted that the statutory language did not explicitly preclude such an award and that the policy considerations underpinning the Act did not support such an exclusion. Consequently, the court held that it possessed the discretion to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, notwithstanding that the plaintiff had appeared without legal representation. This decision underscored the court's obligation to ensure that justice is served fairly, even in cases where a party chooses to represent themselves.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Reakes, granting the order for costs against the defendant, Johnson. The reasoning was that the statutory provisions did not prohibit the court from making such an order, and it was within the court's discretion to do so in the interest of justice. The court further clarified that the costs awarded could include reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff for their self-representation. This decision reinforces the principle that self-representation does not inherently disqualify a litigant from recovering costs where appropriate.

Orders