RODDAN -v- WALKER & ANOR [2000] WASCA 376
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 376 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:23/2000 | 24 OCTOBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J PARKER J | 30/11/00 | |
| 9 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Leave to appeal refused | ||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : RODDAN -v- WALKER & ANOR [2000] WASCA 376 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- PARKER J
- Applicant
AND
MICHAEL JOHN WALKER
First Respondent
DOMINIC ANTHONY STALTARI
Second Respondent
Catchwords:
Appeal - Interlocutory decision - Pleading - Whether mere opposition to bail can found action for malicious prosecution - No cause of action
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Leave to appeal refused
(Page 2)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
First Respondent : Mr T Darbyshire
Second Respondent : Mr T Darbyshire
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
First Respondent : Kott Gunning
Second Respondent : Kott Gunning
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cabassi v Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130
Connell v The Queen (No 5) (1993) 10 WAR 424
Lim v Gregson [1989] WAR 1
The State of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40
Wan v Sweetman and Ors (1998) WAR 95
Wilson v Metaxas (1999) WAR 285
Case(s) also cited:
Adam…
Continue reading Roddan v Walker
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Roddan v Walker [2000] WASCA 376
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 376
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal, heard in the Federal Court of Australia, was brought by Roddan against Walker. The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory decision which dismissed his action for malicious prosecution. The case arose out of events that occurred when Walker, a police officer, opposed bail for Roddan in a criminal case. The appellant claimed that the opposition to bail was malicious and without foundation, which led to the denial of his bail and a prolonged period of detention. The legal issue before the court was whether opposing bail, in and of itself, can be sufficient grounds for an action of malicious prosecution. The court considered the requirements for establishing a malicious prosecution claim, which include the absence of probable cause and the presence of malice. The court found that mere opposition to bail, without more, does not meet the criteria necessary for a malicious prosecution claim. The reasoning hinged on the notion that opposition to bail, as a procedural step in the criminal justice process, is not inherently an act that can be pursued as a malicious prosecution. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to a higher court was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal 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.