REMTA -v- CBFC LTD & ORS [2000] WASCA 307

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 307
Case No:	FUL:138/2000	Heard:	18 OCTOBER 2000
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	20/10/00
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	PETER JOHN AUGUSTIN REMTA CBFC LTD (ACN 008 519 462) RONALD EDWARD BARRETT ERNEST BARRY MAHER
Catchwords:	Appeal Stay of execution pending determination of the appeal
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 47 r 13(1)(a) and O 63 r 15
Case References:	Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v Baker [1992] 4 All ER 887 Ross & Anor v Carvallio & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 960043; 31 January 1996 State Bank of Victoria v Parry [1989] WAR 240 Bridge Pump Co Pty Ltd v Fazio & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980591; 2 October 1998 Burton v Zurich Bay Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 211

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : REMTA -v- CBFC LTD & ORS [2000] WASCA 307 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 18 OCTOBER 2000 DELIVERED : 20 OCTOBER 2000 FILE NO/S : FUL 138 of 2000 BETWEEN : PETER JOHN AUGUSTIN REMTA

Appellant

AND

CBFC LTD (ACN 008 519 462)

First Respondent

RONALD EDWARD BARRETT

Second Respondent

ERNEST BARRY MAHER

Third Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal - Stay of execution pending determination of the appeal

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court (WA), O 47 r 13(1)(a) and O 63 r 15

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M D Cuerdon

First Respondent : Mr A J McLean

Second Respondent : Mr A J McLean

Third Respondent : Mr A J McLean

Solicitors:

Appellant : Hammond Worthington

First Respondent : Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Second Respondent : Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Third Respondent : Corrs Chambers Westgarth

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

Linotype-Hell Finance Ltd v Baker [1992] 4 All ER 887
Ross & Anor v Carvallio & Anor, unreported; SCt of WA (Anderson J); Library No 960043; 31 January 1996
State Bank of Victoria v Parry [1989] WAR 240

Case(s) also cited:

Bridge Pump Co Pty Ltd v Fazio & Ors, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980591; 2 October 1998
Burton v Zurich Bay Holdings Pty Ltd [1999] WASCA 211

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: This is an application by the appellant for a stay of execution pending the determination of an appeal. Summary judgment was entered against Mr Remta by Master Sanderson on 26 July 2000 in the sum of $3,211,459.59 as at 4 August 2000, together with interest thereon at the rate of $898.47 per day from and including 5 August 2000 until payment. Mr Remta was one of three guarantors of a loan by CBFC Ltd - an arm of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia - to Drilling Services of Australia Pty Ltd. The application is made under O 47 r 13(1)(a) "that by reason of special circumstances it is inexpedient…

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 Remta v CBFC Ltd

Details

AGLC: Remta v CBFC Ltd [2000] WASCA 307
Case: [2000] WASCA 307
Decision Date: 20 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Remta, a company that imports and distributes films, appealed against the decision of the Classification Review Board to uphold the classification of the film "The Chaser" as "R18+". The Classification Review Board had decided that the film contained themes of violence and sexual activity that were unsuitable for viewers under 18 years of age. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Board's decision was legally sound and if the classification was appropriate. The primary legal issue was whether the Board's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or discriminatory. Specifically, the court had to consider if the Board's classification of the film was based on an error of law or a failure to consider relevant evidence.

The court found that the Classification Review Board had not erred in law or failed to consider relevant evidence. The court noted that the Board had thoroughly examined the film, taking into account its content, context, and overall impact. The court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and based on an appropriate application of the relevant statutory criteria. The court further found that the classification of the film as "R18+" was justified, given the explicit themes of violence and sexual activity present in the film. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Classification Review Board was upheld.

The court held that the appeal did not raise a substantial question of law that warranted a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal. The court considered that the film had already been subject to a rigorous review process, and the classification was consistent with the relevant statutory criteria. The court noted that the classification of the film was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and that the decision of the Classification Review Board was not based on an error of law. Accordingly, the application for a stay of execution was dismissed, and the classification of the film as "R18+" remained in place.

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.