Scoby-Smith v LANG - [2019] WADC 57

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   SCOBY-SMITH -v- LANG [2019] WADC 57
CORAM:   LONSDALE DCJ
HEARD:   23 JANUARY 2019
DELIVERED          :   18 APRIL 2019
FILE NO/S:   APP 86 of 2018
BETWEEN:   HAYDEN LEE SCOBY-SMITH
Appellant
AND
TAHLIA SYMOANE LANG
Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against refusal of application for relief by interpleader - Civil Judgment Enforcements Act 2004 (WA) - Ownership of vehicle - Whether licence holder the owner - Failure to give adequate reasons

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), pt 4, div 6
District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 50(1)
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 40(4)
Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA), s 5, s 5(1)(a), s 5(1)(b), s 6

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr M J Joubert
Respondent	:	In person

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Emeris Lawyers Pty Ltd
Respondent	:	Not applicable

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

Butler v Bennett [2007] WADC 107
City Motors (1933) Pty Ltd v Southern Aerial Super Service Pty Ltd (1961) 106 CLR 477; [1962] ALR 184
Kanbur Pty Ltd v Adams (1984) 3 FCR 192
Lilley v Doubleday (1881) 7 QBD 510
McKenna & Armistead Pty Ltd v Excavations Pty Ltd (1956) 57 SR (NSW) 515, 518
Oteri v Craft Décor Pty Ltd [2010] WADC 187
Russell v Wilson (1923) 33 CLR 538; (1923) 30 ALR 75
Sandeman v Robinson (1877) Knox 382

LONSDALE DCJ:

Introduction

This is an appeal against a decision of his Honour Magistrate Shackleton on 21 August 2018 to deny the appellant interpleader relief concerning the seizure of a motor vehicle by the bailiff.

The circumstances leading to the appellant's claim for interpleader relief

On 12 May 2017 the respondent filed a general procedure claim[1] against the appellant's father, Cameron Wade Scoby-Smith. To avoid confusion, I will refer to the latter as Mr Scoby-Smith Senior and the appellant as the appellant.
[1] BV GCLM 370/2017.
In November 2017 the respondent obtained default judgment against the appellant in the sum of $6,353.
In March 2018 a seizure order was sent to the bailiff who attached vehicle registration number 1DRY‑397 (the vehicle) in execution.
At the time of the attachment, the vehicle was registered with the Department of Transport in the name of the appellant but was in the possession Mr Scoby-Smith Senior.[2]
[2] Appellant's outline of submissions par 1 - 3.
The appellant filed a notice of claim against Mr Scoby-Smith Senior pursuant to pt 4, div 6 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) (the CJE Act) to prevent the bailiff seizing the vehicle. In support of the notice, the appellant attached a statutory declaration in which he declared that he owned the vehicle and had done so since 14 April 2016.[3]
[3] Statutory declaration of Hayden Lee Scoby-Smith dated 7 May 2018.
The bailiff then commenced interpleader proceedings for the determination of the ownership of the vehicle by serving a notice of judgment to the respondent under the CJE Act.

The…

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 Scoby-Smith v LANG

Details

AGLC: Scoby-Smith v LANG [2019] WADC 57
Case: [2019] WADC 57
Decision Date: 18 APRIL 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Scoby-Smith v LANG, the plaintiff sought relief by interpleader in relation to the ownership of a vehicle. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the plaintiff challenged the refusal of an earlier application for interpleader. The primary issue before the court was whether the licence holder of the vehicle was also the owner, and if the refusal of the application for interpleader was justified. The case hinged on the interpretation of the Civil Judgment Enforcements Act 2004 (WA) and the adequacy of the reasons provided for the refusal.

The court considered whether the respondent had provided sufficient reasons to justify the refusal of the interpleader application. The plaintiff argued that the respondent's reasons were inadequate and did not adequately address the issue of ownership. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the procedural history of the case. It assessed whether the respondent had discharged the onus of demonstrating that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought. The court held that the reasons provided by the respondent were insufficient and did not provide a clear and convincing basis for the refusal of the interpleader application.

The Supreme Court found that the respondent had failed to provide adequate reasons for the refusal of the interpleader application. The court held that the respondent's reasons did not adequately address the issue of ownership and did not provide a clear and convincing basis for the refusal. The court quashed the decision of the respondent and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of providing adequate reasons for the refusal of an interpleader application, particularly in cases involving complex questions of ownership. The court did not make any further orders regarding the ownership of the vehicle, leaving that matter to be determined on the reconsideration of the application.

Orders