SCOTT -v- PERRING [2018] WADC 32
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2018] WADC 32 | |
| Case No: | APP:76/2017 | 22 JANUARY 2018 | |
| Coram: | GLANCY DCJ | 12/03/18 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 13 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID ALEXANDER SCOTT FIONA LOUISE PERRING |
Catchwords: | Appeal from Magistrates Court Refusal by magistrate to set aside default judgment Minor case Appeal on grounds of denial of natural justice |
Legislation: | Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) s 6, s 32, s 40 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 13 r 10 |
Case References: | Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87 Griffiths v The Queen [1989] HCA 39; (1989) 167 CLR 372 Hall v Hall [2007] WASC 198 Ibrahim v The Honourable Justice Martin [2012] WASC 338 J v Lieschke (1987) 162 CLR 447 Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273 Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148 Re Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306 Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA) [2012] WASC 48 Sovereign Grange Pty Ltd v AV Truck Services Pty Ltd [No 2] [2016] WADC 73 Starrs v Retravision (WA) Ltd [2012] WASCA 67 Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323 The Owners of SP13443, 129 – 133 Eighth Avenue, Maylands v Owners of 135 Eighth Avenue, Maylands (Survey Strata Plan 44698) [2015] WADC 133 Tran v Claydon [2003] WASCA 318 Wildflower Electrical Refrigeration Service (WA) v Refrigid Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 382 |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- Appellant
AND
FIONA LOUISE PERRING
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MAGISTRATE TAVENER
File No : MI MINOR 1011 of 2017
Catchwords:
Appeal from Magistrates Court - Refusal by magistrate to set aside default judgment - Minor case - Appeal on grounds of denial of natural justice
Legislation:
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) s 6, s 32, s 40
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 13 r 10
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr M J Spiegl
Respondent : In person
Solicitors:
Appellant : Victoria Park Legal
Respondent : Not applicable
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Griffiths v The Queen [1989] HCA 39; (1989) 167 CLR 372
Hall v Hall [2007] WASC 198
Ibrahim v The Honourable Justice Martin [2012] WASC 338
J v Lieschke (1987) 162 CLR 447
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA…
Continue reading Scott v Perring
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Scott v Perring [2018] WADC 32
- Case
- [2018] WADC 32
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal arose from a decision by a magistrate in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, where the respondent, Perring, had obtained a default judgment against the appellant, Scott, in a minor civil case. The appellant sought to set aside the default judgment on the grounds that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard, alleging a denial of natural justice. The appeal was brought before the County Court of Victoria, which dismissed the appeal.
The central legal issue before the County Court was whether the appellant's procedural rights were breached by the magistrate's refusal to set aside the default judgment. The appellant contended that the magistrate should have considered his application to set aside the judgment, as it was fundamental to the principles of natural justice that both parties be heard. The respondent argued that the appellant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his failure to defend the claim, and thus, the judgment should stand.
The County Court found that the appellant's procedural rights were not breached. The court held that the magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment. The appellant had not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear in court, and the respondent had established a prima facie case warranting a default judgment. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision did not offend the principles of natural justice, as the appellant had not been deprived of a fair opportunity to be heard.
The appeal was dismissed, and the County Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates Court. The appellant's application to set aside the default judgment was rejected, and the default judgment obtained by the respondent against the appellant was maintained.
The central legal issue before the County Court was whether the appellant's procedural rights were breached by the magistrate's refusal to set aside the default judgment. The appellant contended that the magistrate should have considered his application to set aside the judgment, as it was fundamental to the principles of natural justice that both parties be heard. The respondent argued that the appellant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his failure to defend the claim, and thus, the judgment should stand.
The County Court found that the appellant's procedural rights were not breached. The court held that the magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion in refusing to set aside the default judgment. The appellant had not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to appear in court, and the respondent had established a prima facie case warranting a default judgment. The court concluded that the magistrate's decision did not offend the principles of natural justice, as the appellant had not been deprived of a fair opportunity to be heard.
The appeal was dismissed, and the County Court upheld the decision of the Magistrates Court. The appellant's application to set aside the default judgment was rejected, and the default judgment obtained by the respondent against the appellant was maintained.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.