REID -v- WONG [2016] WASC 355

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2016] WASC 355
Case No:	SAT:1/2016	Heard:	13 OCTOBER 2016
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	3/11/16
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JEANNE REID KUM KIT WONG
Catchwords:	Application for leave to enforce judgment Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
Case References:	Wong v Reid [2016] WASC 59

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : REID -v- WONG [2016] WASC 355 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 13 OCTOBER 2016 DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2016 FILE NO/S : SAT 1 of 2016 BETWEEN : JEANNE REID

Plaintiff

AND

KUM KIT WONG

Defendant

Catchwords:

Application for leave to enforce judgment - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : In person

Defendant : In person

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

Wong v Reid [2016] WASC 59

1 MASTER SANDERSON: In his poem Mending Wall Robert Frost suggested good fences make good neighbours. When neighbours own strata lots and walls are not an option relationships can become strained. This is such a case. In the present application the plaintiff seeks an order under the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (the Act). To explain why the order is sought it is necessary to offer some background to the dispute. That was done by Beech J in Wong v Reid [2016] WASC 59. His Honour summarised the position as follows:

Background

Mr Wong and the respondent, Mrs Reid, each own units in a four lot strata scheme in Como. Mr Wong owns unit 2 and Mrs Reid unit 1. On 6 March 2015, Mr Wong commenced works to construct a brick wall and Colourbond fence on common property adjoining unit 2. The effect of the wall and fence was to enclose common property for the exclusive use of unit 2. In order to allow the wall to be built, a garden of native plants was removed from the common property.

On 17 March 2015, Mrs Reid applied to the Tribunal under s 83(1) of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA), seeking an order for demolition of the wall and fence.

The issues before the Tribunal

Before the Tribunal Mr Wong claimed that he had sought Mrs Reid's approval, by writing to her, but that she had not responded. Mrs Reid stated that she was unaware of Mr Wong's plans to build the wall until the building works commenced on 6 March 2015. Mr Wong said that he approached Mrs Reid on a number of occasions and did not get a response. Mr Wong did not assert that Mrs Reid had given any approval, whether in writing or otherwise.

Further, Mr Wong claimed that, by error in 1996, the area of common property in front of Mr Wong's…

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 Reid v Wong

Details

AGLC: Reid v Wong [2016] WASC 355
Case: [2016] WASC 355
Decision Date: 3 NOVEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were Reid and Wong. The dispute arose from a failed application for leave to enforce a judgment. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Reid, sought to enforce a judgment debt owed by the respondent, Wong. Reid argued that Wong had failed to comply with the original judgment and sought leave to enforce the judgment through various means, including garnishee orders and freezing orders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for leave to enforce the judgment was appropriate and whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for such an application. The court needed to determine if there was a legitimate basis for enforcing the judgment and whether the applicant had acted in good faith. Additionally, the court had to assess if there were any obstacles, such as Wong's financial situation, that could impede the enforcement of the judgment.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the need for the applicant to demonstrate a strong case for enforcement, including evidence of the respondent's ability to pay and the respondent's failure to comply with the original judgment. The court found that Reid had not provided sufficient evidence to support the application for leave to enforce the judgment. The court concluded that the application did not meet the necessary threshold for enforcement and was thus dismissed. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a compelling case warranting intervention to enforce the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.