Ruffles v Chilman - [1999] WASCA 112

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: RUFFLES -v- CHILMAN [1999] WASCA 112

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
IPP J
STEYTLER J

HEARD: 18 MAY 1999

DELIVERED : 18 MAY 1999

PUBLISHED : 4 AUGUST 1999

FILE NO/S: FUL 182 of 1998

BETWEEN: PATRICK CHARLES RUFFLES
Appellant (Plaintiff)
AND
GEOFFREY CHILMAN
First Respondent (First Defendant)
KEVIN HAMILTON
Second Respondent (Second Defendant)

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Stay of execution - Order for payment of costs of appeal - Whether stay should be ordered pending re-trial - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Plaintiff)  :        Mr C P Stokes
First Respondent (First Defendant)          :        Ms B A Mangan
Second Respondent (Second Defendant) :        Ms B A Mangan

Solicitors:

Appellant (Plaintiff)  :        Butcher Paull & Calder
First Respondent (First Defendant)          :        Phillips Fox
Second Respondent (Second Defendant) :        Phillips Fox

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

State Bank of Victoria v Parry [1989] WAR 240

Case(s) also cited:

Automatic Weighing Machine Co v Combined Weighing and Advertising Machine Co (1889) [1886-90] All ER Rep Ext 1343
Burnet v Francis Industries PLC [1987] 1 WLR 802
Eastman v Wilson [1938] VR 83
Grant v The Banque Franco-Egyptienne (1878) 3 CPD 202
Joskovitz v Bonnick [1964] VR 654
Marine and General Mutual Life Assurance Society v Feltwell Fen Second District Drainage Board [1945] KB 395
Ruffles v Chilman & Anor (1997) 17 WAR 1
Ruffles v Chilman & Anor, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980314; 12 June 1998
Stevens v Economic House Builders [1938] 1 All ER 654
T C Trustees & Anor v J S Darwen (Successors) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 295

MALCOLM CJ: At the conclusion of the argument on this appeal on 18 May 1998 the Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal setting aside the order of a Master of this Court providing for a stay of execution in respect of costs. The reasons to be published by Steytler J adequately express my own reasons for joining in the making of those orders.
IPP J: I have read the reasons to be published by Steytler J. I agree with them and his Honour's conclusions. I have nothing further to add.
STEYTLER J: The appellant has appealed against the decision of a Master of this Court whereby he ordered, on the application of the respondents, a stay of execution in respect of an order for payment of the costs of an appeal which had been ordered to be paid by the respondents to the appellant in respect of an appeal which had been successfully brought by the appellant against the decision of a judge of the District Court. After submissions had been heard in respect of the appeal against the learned Master's order, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the stay. We said that we would publish our reasons for reaching that…

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 Ruffles v Chilman

Details

AGLC: Ruffles v Chilman [1999] WASCA 112
Case: [1999] WASCA 112
Decision Date: 4 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ruffles v Chilman, the respondent, Ruffles, sought a stay of execution of a judgment in favour of the appellant, Chilman, pending a re-trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute involved whether the court should order a stay of execution of the judgment pending a re-trial and whether the appellant was entitled to an order for payment of the respondent's costs of the appeal. The matter turned on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the potential prejudice that the respondent might suffer if the stay was not granted.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the criteria for granting a stay of execution and the circumstances in which costs should be awarded in an appeal. The primary issue was whether the respondent had demonstrated that he would suffer significant prejudice if the stay was not granted. The court also had to assess whether the respondent had a strong case for re-trial, which would justify a stay of execution. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the appellant's application for costs was justified based on the respondent's failure to establish a strong case for re-trial.

The court found that the respondent had not demonstrated that he would suffer significant prejudice if the stay was not granted. It was concluded that the respondent's application for a stay of execution should be dismissed. Additionally, the court ruled that the appellant was entitled to an order for payment of the respondent's costs of the appeal due to the lack of merit in the respondent's application. The court held that the respondent's failure to establish a strong case for re-trial warranted the imposition of costs against him. The respondent's application for a stay of execution was dismissed, and the appellant was granted an order for payment of the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders