Satchithanantham v Folkes - [2019] ACTSC 165

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Satchithanantham v Folkes
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 165
Hearing Dates:	20 and 21 June 2019
Final Submissions Date:	3 July 2019
DecisionDate:	11 July 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	The appeal is dismissed
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – APPEAL – Appeal from interlocutory orders of Magistrates Court – interlocutory application in appeal proceedings – whether court has jurisdiction to hear appeal – it does not – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 1992 (ACT), ss 20B, 42A, 42A(c), 43A Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 5172, 6140, 6142 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 116(3) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 407(1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 41B, 42, 207(1)(a), 207(2), 208, 208(1), 208(1)(a)(ii), 208(2), 216, Div 3.10.2, Div 3.10.3 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 8(1), 8(1)(c), 20, 20(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	Burow v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 61; 11 ACTLR 157 Eastman v DPP (No 1) [2014] ACTSCFC 1; 9 ACTLR 163 Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia v Broken Hill Pty Company Ltd (1911) 12 CLR 398 Obeid v R [2015] NSWCCA 309; 91 NSWLR 226 The Queen v Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green (1984) 156 CLR 185
Parties:	Thambiappah Satchithanantham (Appellant) Benjamin Folkes (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) M Howe (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 20 of 2019
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Taylor Date of Decision: 4 April 2019 Court File Numbers: MC 10156 of 2018 MC 10314 of 2018 MC 10315 of 2018 MC 10316 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The appellant, Thambiappah Satchithanantham, has appealed to the Supreme Court from interlocutory decisions of the Magistrates Court. He has then made an interlocutory application in the appeal proceedings. In order to understand the present application it is necessary to set out some background.

The proceedings in the Magistrates Court

The substantive proceedings in the Magistrates Court are criminal proceedings in which the appellant is alleged to have committed the following offences:

(a)damaging property, namely, a laptop computer belonging to himself and his wife contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2018/10156);
(b)damaging property, namely plates and drinking glasses belonging to himself and his wife contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act (CC2018/10314);
(c)assault, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act (CC2018/10315); and
(d)threatening to damage property, namely a pet cockatiel, contrary to s 407(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CC2018/10316).

The offences are alleged to have occurred on 8 August 2018. The proceedings were listed for hearing on 8 April 2019. Unfortunately, the proceedings were not reached on 8 April 2019 or on 9 April 2019 and, on that latter date, the hearing of the matter was adjourned until 30 September 2019. The appellant presently has interlocutory applications before the Magistrates Court.

The interlocutory application in the Magistrates Court

By application dated 3 April 2019, the appellant sought a variety of relief which was organised…

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 Satchithanantham v Folkes

Details

AGLC: Satchithanantham v Folkes [2019] ACTSC 165
Case: [2019] ACTSC 165
Decision Date: 11 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Satchithanantham, the appellant, appealed against interlocutory orders made by the Magistrates Court, which were intended to address a dispute involving a third party, Folkes, the respondent. The appellant sought to appeal the interlocutory orders on the basis that they were incorrectly made. The legal issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the interlocutory orders. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the interlocutory orders, and whether it was appropriate to hear the appeal at that stage in the proceedings. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the interlocutory orders as the appeal was interlocutory in nature, and such appeals could only be heard at the conclusion of the proceedings. The court held that the appeal was premature and thus dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is 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.