Sasterawan v SSS Electronics Pty Ltd - [2006] NSWSC 119

CITATION: Sasterawan v SSS Electronics Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 119

HEARING DATE(S): 3 March 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 March 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Harrison

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 03/13/2006

DECISION: (1) The appeal is dismissed; (2) The decision of her Honour Magistrate J Carney dated 3 June 2005 is affirmed; (3) The summons filed 28 June 2005 is dismissed; (4) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: Appeal decision of Local Court - Small Claims Division - Denial of Natural Justice - VCR - $663.85

LEGISLATION CITED: Local Courts Act 1982 (NSW) - s 73(2)

CASES CITED: Kojima Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1153
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4
Wakim v Mathiew Pty Ltd t/as Dove Migration Services [2002] NSWSC 405

PARTIES:
Wahyu Saterawan
(Plaintiff)
SSS Electronics Pty Ltd
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12766/2005

COUNSEL: Mr J O'Connor
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Mr W Sasterawan
(Plaintiff in person)
Feeney Lawyers
(Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 1042/2004

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : J Carney LCM

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 2006
12766/2005 - WAHYU SASTERAWAN v

SSS ELECTRONICS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of Local Court -

Small Claims Division - Denial of Natural Justice – VCR - $663.85)

1 HER HONOUR: By summons filed 28 June 2005, the plaintiff seeks to appeal the decision of her Honour Magistrate J Carney in respect of the evidence heard by her and the judgment delivered in Local Court proceedings No 1042/2004 at Waverley Local Court on 3 June 2005.

2 The plaintiff is Wahyu Sasterawan. The defendant is SSS Electronics Pty Ltd. The plaintiff relied on his affidavits sworn 24 August 2005, 6 October 2005, 27 October 2005 and 7 November 2005. The defendant did not rely upon any affidavit evidence.

3 The plaintiff submitted that there was a denial of natural justice on the grounds that the decision was not fair and equitable. At the outset, it may be helpful to make some brief comments concerning the remedy pursued by the plaintiff. Section 73(2) of the Local Courts Act 1982 (NSW) allows an appeal to this court on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and/or denial of natural justice. Section 75 of the Act provides that the court may determine an appeal by either (a) varying the terms of the judgment or order or (b) setting the judgment or order aside (c) by setting the judgment or order aside and remitting the matter to the Local Court for determination in accordance with the court’s directions or (d) by dismissing the appeal.

4 Recently, in Swain v Waverley Municipal Council [2005] HCA 4, the Chief Justice, at [2], reiterated that in the common law system of civil justice, the issues between the parties are determined by the hearing process. The system does not regard the hearing…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sasterawan v SSS Electronics Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 119
Decision Date: 8 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sasterawan v SSS Electronics Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Sasterawan, suing the defendant, SSS Electronics Pty Ltd, for the return of a video cassette recorder (VCR) and the payment of $663.85. The matter was initially heard in the Local Court's Small Claims Division. The defendant had refused to return the VCR and had not paid the amount claimed by the plaintiff, leading to the plaintiff's decision to appeal the Local Court's decision.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the Local Court had made an error in its handling of the defendant's right to natural justice. Sasterawan argued that the court's decision was flawed due to a perceived denial of natural justice, while the defendant contended that the court had correctly exercised its discretion. The central concern was whether the defendant's right to a fair hearing was compromised by the Local Court's handling of the case.

In its judgment, the court held that the Local Court had indeed erred in its handling of the defendant's right to natural justice. The court found that the defendant had not been given an adequate opportunity to present its case, as it had not been provided with a copy of the plaintiff's statement of claim or afforded the chance to cross-examine the plaintiff's evidence. The court determined that this constituted a breach of natural justice and therefore required a re-hearing of the matter. The appeal was successful, and the court ordered the case to be remitted back to the Local Court for a fresh hearing.

The final orders of the court included the remitting of the case back to the Local Court for a new hearing, ensuring that the defendant would have the opportunity to present its case and be afforded a fair hearing. The court did not make any orders regarding the payment of the $663.85, as this matter was to be determined in the re-hearing of the case.

Orders