SEIFFERT -v- PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [2010] WASC 239

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2010] WASC 239
Case No:	CIV:1872/2010	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	MARTIN CJ	Delivered:	3/09/10
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JASON ANDREW SEIFFERT PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LENNARD MARK KIRBY MICHAEL LANCE LITTLEFAIR
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Access to list of documents referred to in an affidavit Order 26 r 8(2) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) Relevance of discovery to such an application Applications received via e-mail Compliance with O 59 r 9 Rules of the Supreme Court
Legislation:	Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 4A r 17(1), O 26 r 1, O 26 r 7, O 26 r 8(2)
Case References:	Schreuder v Murray [No 2] [2009] WASCA 145

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SEIFFERT -v- PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD [2010] WASC 239 CORAM : MARTIN CJ HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2010 FILE NO/S : CIV 1872 of 2010 BETWEEN : JASON ANDREW SEIFFERT

Applicant

AND

PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD

Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Intervenor

FILE NO/S : CIV 1910 of 2010 BETWEEN : LENNARD MARK KIRBY

Applicant

AND

PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD

Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Intervenor

FILE NO/S : CIV 1912 of 2010 (Page 2)
BETWEEN : MICHAEL LANCE LITTLEFAIR

Applicant

AND

PRISONERS REVIEW BOARD

Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Intervenor

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Access to list of documents referred to in an affidavit - Order 26 r 8(2) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) - Relevance of discovery to such an application - Applications received via e-mail - Compliance with O 59 r 9 Rules of the Supreme Court

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 4A r 17(1), O 26 r 1, O 26 r 7, O 26 r 8(2)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

(Page 3)

Representation:

CIV 1872 of 2010

Counsel:

Applicant : Dr J T Schoombee

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms S J Keighery

Solicitors:

Applicant : Thames Legal

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : State Solicitor's Office

CIV 1910 of 2010

Counsel:

Applicant : Dr J T Schoombee

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms S J Keighery

Solicitors:

Applicant : Holborn Lenhoff Massey

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : State Solicitor's Office

CIV 1912 of 2010

Counsel:

Applicant : Dr J T Schoombee

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : Mr G T W Tannin SC & Ms S J Keighery

Solicitors:

Applicant : Amidzic Lawyers

Respondent : No appearance

Intervenor : State Solicitor's Office

(Page 4)

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

Schreuder v Murray [No 2] [2009] WASCA 145

(Page 5)

1 MARTIN CJ: In these proceedings…

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 Seiffert v Prisoners Review Board 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: [2010] WASC 239
Decision Date: 3 SEPTEMBER 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court involved an applicant seeking access to a list of documents referenced in an affidavit. The applicant, Seiffert, was contesting the decision of the Prisoners Review Board. The legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of Order 26 Rule 8(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971, and whether the discovery of documents was relevant to an application for access to the list. Additionally, the court had to consider the procedural requirements of receiving applications via email and whether they complied with Order 59 Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The court found that Order 26 Rule 8(2) did not preclude the applicant from accessing the list of documents, and the relevance of discovery to the application was not a barrier. It was held that applications received via email could comply with the rules if they adhered to the necessary procedural standards. The court granted the application for access to the list of documents, finding that the procedural requirements were met and the application was within the court's jurisdiction.

In light of the findings, the court granted the application. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when submitting applications via email and clarified the scope of Order 26 Rule 8(2) concerning access to lists of documents. This case provides guidance for future litigants on the procedural steps necessary to ensure compliance with court rules when making such applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

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.