Romeo v Wesley College

Case [2014] WADC 152

ROMEO -v- WESLEY COLLEGE [2014] WADC 152



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2014] WADC 152
Case No:APP:41/20143 SEPTEMBER 2014
Coram:WAGER DCJ6/11/14
PERTH
11Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
PDF Version
Parties:VINCENT JIM ROMEO
KAREN LEE ROMEO
WESLEY COLLEGE

Catchwords:
Appeal from Magistrates Court seeking to set aside judgment
Amended statement of defence and counterclaim does not disclose any reasonably arguable grounds

Legislation:
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 17, s 40(4)
District Court Rules 2005 r 50(2), r 50(3)

Case References:
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways NSW [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Intertransport International Private Ltd v Donaldson [2005] VSCA 303
Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Smeaton Hanscomb & Co Ltd v Sassoon I. Setty Son & Co [1953] 2 All ER 1471; [1953] 1 WLR 1468
Vitale v Bednall [2000] WASC 207

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : ROMEO -v- WESLEY COLLEGE [2014] WADC 152 CORAM : WAGER DCJ HEARD : 3 SEPTEMBER 2014 DELIVERED : 6 NOVEMBER 2014 FILE NO/S : APP 41 of 2014 BETWEEN : VINCENT JIM ROMEO
    First Appellant

    KAREN LEE ROMEO
    Second Appellant

    AND

    WESLEY COLLEGE
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE ATKINS

File No : PE GCLM 15278 of 2012


Catchwords:

Appeal from Magistrates Court seeking to set aside judgment - Amended statement of defence and counterclaim does not disclose any reasonably arguable grounds

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 17, s 40(4)


District Court Rules 2005 r 50(2), r 50(3)

Result:

Appeal dismissed


Representation:

Counsel:


    First Appellant : In person
    Second Appellant : No appearance
    Respondent : Ms C Rab

Solicitors:

    First Appellant : Not applicable
    Second Appellant : Not applicable
    Respondent : Mossensons


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

Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways NSW [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Intertransport International Private Ltd v Donaldson [2005] VSCA 303
Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 322
Smeaton Hanscomb & Co Ltd v Sassoon I. Setty Son & Co [1953] 2 All ER 1471; [1953] 1 WLR 1468
Vitale v Bednall [2000] WASC 207

1 WAGER DCJ: Mr Romeo appeals against the decision of her Honour Magistrate Atkins who, following a re-hearing, dismissed his application brought pursuant to the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 17(3) (MCCP Act) seeking to set aside the judgment made by his Honour Magistrate Malone who had granted judgment in favour of Wesley College pursuant to s 17(1)(b) and s 17(2) MCCP Act on 20 December 2013.

2 Neither Mr Romeo nor…

Continue reading Romeo v Wesley College

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Romeo v Wesley College [2014] WADC 152
Case
[2014] WADC 152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Romeo, a former student of Wesley College, appealed against a judgment entered by the Magistrates Court. The case arose from a personal injury claim made by Romeo against Wesley College, who were his school at the time of the incident. The appeal sought to set aside the judgment, which had been entered in favour of the College. The amended statement of defence and counterclaim submitted by Romeo did not, according to the Court, disclose any reasonably arguable grounds for appeal.

The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the amended statement of defence and counterclaim presented by Romeo disclosed any reasonably arguable grounds for setting aside the Magistrates Court's judgment. The Court found that the amended statement of defence and counterclaim failed to meet this threshold, as they did not present a valid or arguable basis for appeal. The Court considered the content of the amended pleadings and concluded that they did not contain any new or different facts that could potentially alter the outcome of the original judgment.

The Court further held that the amended statement of defence and counterclaim did not present a valid legal or factual argument that could lead to a different outcome. The Court examined the arguments presented in the amended pleadings and found them to be unconvincing and lacking in substance. The Court emphasised that an amended statement of defence and counterclaim must disclose a reasonable arguable basis for appeal, and in this case, the amended pleadings did not meet this standard. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Magistrates Court's judgment in favour of Wesley College.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the appeal and confirm the Magistrates Court's judgment. The Court did not find any merit in the arguments presented by Romeo and concluded that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that amended pleadings contain a valid and arguable basis for appeal, and in this case, Romeo's amended statement of defence and counterclaim did not meet this requirement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.