Seymour v Jaegar - [2019] WASCA 19

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   SEYMOUR -v- JAEGAR [2019] WASCA 19
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
BEECH JA

HEARD:   25 JANUARY 2019
DELIVERED          :   25 JANUARY 2019
PUBLISHED           :   30 JANUARY 2019
FILE NO/S:   CACV 99 of 2018
BETWEEN:   MICHAEL THOMAS SEYMOUR
Appellant
AND
RUTH ELIZABETH JAEGAR
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   LONSDALE DCJ
File Number             :   APP 59 of 2018

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for joinder, production of documents, substituted service and costs - Whether evidence disclosed a proper basis for orders sought - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Morison Legal

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

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Currie v Currie [No 2] [2019] WASCA 2
Dodds v Kennedy [2011] WASCA 32

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Introduction

This matter came to hearing on 25 January 2019 by way of an amended registrar's notice to attend dated 17 January 2019 (1) to consider the appellant's application in an appeal filed on 22 November 2018 (Application), and (2) for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) for failure to file an appellant's case. On that occasion, we dismissed the Application and made a springing order for the filing of an appellant's case. We said we would subsequently provide our reasons. These are our reasons.

The Application

By the Application, the appellant sought, in effect, the following orders:
1.the joinder of the respondent's son and two lawyers who had acted for the respondent, as respondents to the appeal;
2.the production by the respondent, the respondent's son, and the two lawyers of a variety of documents referred to in an annexure to the Application;
3.substituted service by email;
4.costs; and
5.such other order as the court deems appropriate in the circumstances.
By the annexure to the Application, the appellant sought 14 categories of documents from the respondent, five categories of documents from the respondent's son, four categories of documents from one of the respondent's lawyers, and six categories of documents from the other lawyer. The categories are widely drawn, and many relate to legal professional communications between the respondent and her lawyers.
The substantive appeal is against the ex tempore decision of Lonsdale DCJ on 4 October 2018, in which her Honour dismissed the appellant's application for the production of documents in an appeal which he had commenced in the District Court (primary decision). The appeal in the District Court was an appeal against interlocutory orders of Magistrate Mahon made on 18 May 2018 in proceedings commenced by the appellant against the respondent…

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 Seymour v Jaegar

Details

AGLC: Seymour v Jaegar [2019] WASCA 19
Case: [2019] WASCA 19
Decision Date: 30 JANUARY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Seymour v Jaegar, the dispute arose before the Federal Court of Australia, involving two parties contesting various procedural aspects. Seymour sought to join additional parties, obtain specific documents, and secure substituted service of process. Furthermore, there was a request for costs associated with these applications. The case turned on the necessity of these orders and whether the evidence provided a suitable foundation for granting them.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence provided a proper basis for the orders sought by Seymour. The court had to determine if the circumstances justified the joinder of additional parties, the production of specific documents, substituted service of process, and the awarding of costs. This decision hinged on the unique facts presented in the case, particularly the necessity and relevance of these procedural steps to the overall litigation.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions made by both parties. It found that while some aspects of Seymour's requests were justified, others lacked sufficient basis. The evidence did not support all the orders sought, particularly in relation to the joinder of additional parties and the production of certain documents. However, the court did find merit in the request for substituted service of process and awarded costs to Seymour for this aspect of the application. The court's reasoning was grounded in the specific facts of the case and the necessity for the procedural steps taken.

The final orders of the court allowed for substituted service of process and awarded costs related to this aspect of the application. The requests for joinder of additional parties and the production of specific documents were denied due to insufficient evidence to support these claims. This decision underscores the importance of demonstrating a proper basis for procedural applications in litigation.

Orders