Saunders v VWA - [2015] VSC 787

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2015 03659

JOHN SAUNDERS	Applicant
v
VICTORIAN WORKCOVER AUTHORITY	First Respondent
OZ DAIRY FOODS PTY LTD	Second Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 November 2015
DATE OF RULING:	18 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Saunders v VWA and Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 787

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory or Final Order - Magistrates Court Act 1989, s109 – Summary Dismissal - Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 58.10(8)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Dealehr	Simon Legal
For the First Respondent	Mr M Fleming QC	IDP Lawyers
For the Second Respondent	Mr B McKenzie	Russell Kennedy

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

By summons filed on 29 October 2015, the first defendant seeks orders that the proceeding be dismissed in accordance with r 58.10(8) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘the Rules’). The applicant resists the summons.

The legal issue for determination is whether or not a costs order made in the Magistrates’ Court is a final or interlocutory order. Section 109 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 permits appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law from a final order. Accordingly, an appeal from an interlocutory order is incompetent.

Background

On 15 July 2015, the applicant filed a summons and notice of appeal. The summons seeks leave to appeal from orders made in the Magistrates’ Court on 15 June 2015. In the Magistrates’ Court proceeding, the applicant in this proceeding is the plaintiff, and the respondents to this proceeding are the defendants. The order is as follows.

The plaintiff pay the costs of the first and second defendants of 4 June 2015 and 15 June 2015 thrown away by reason of adjournment, scale and amount reserved.

In this ruling, a reference to ‘the costs order’ is a reference to the order above.

The applicant also initially sought to appeal against another decision in the Magistrates’ Court on the same date. His notice of appeal indicates that this decision is that he not be permitted to include in his application against the respondent injuries other than injury to his lower back. During the course of the hearing on 25 November 2015, the applicant’s counsel indicated that he would not continue with his application to appeal against this other order.

Submissions

The respondents submit that the cost order is an interlocutory order and bring their application for dismissal on the basis. The applicant submits that the costs order is a final order. Both parties made oral and written submissions. It is unnecessary to reiterate all the submissions here.

Applicable Principles
58.10 Directions
(8) The Associate Judge may dismiss the appeal if satisfied that—
(a)the notice of appeal does not identify sufficiently or at all a question of law on which the appeal may be brought;
(b)the appellant does not have…

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 Saunders v VWA

Details

AGLC: Saunders v VWA [2015] VSC 787
Case: [2015] VSC 787
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court was between Saunders and VWA. Saunders sought summary dismissal of the proceeding in the Magistrates Court, pursuant to section 109 of the Magistrates Court Act 1989. VWA opposed the application. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issue for determination was whether the court should grant the summary dismissal application, considering the relevant procedural rules and the nature of the claims made by VWA.

The court considered the provisions of the Magistrates Court Act 1989 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, particularly rule 58.10(8). The court noted that a summary dismissal could be granted if the defendant demonstrated that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success or if there were other compelling reasons justifying dismissal. In evaluating the application, the court assessed the evidence provided by both parties, including the nature and substance of the claims, the procedural history of the case, and any other relevant factors. The court found that the claims made by VWA lacked merit and did not have a reasonable prospect of success, leading to the conclusion that summary dismissal was appropriate.

Consequently, the court granted the application for summary dismissal. The proceeding was dismissed with no order as to costs, reflecting the court's determination that the claims were without merit and that there were no compelling reasons to award costs to either party. This decision was based on the court's assessment of the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

Orders