Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd & Anor - [2012] VSCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2012 0111

JOHN RASHLEIGH SHAW
	Applicant
v.
YARRANOVA PTY LTD (ACN 007 317 616) and NEWQUAY STAGE 2 PTY LTD (ACN 086 482 644)	Proposed Respondents

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ and BEACH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 August 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 189

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Application for leave to appeal – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 rr 27.06, 63.56.1.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Shaw in person
For the proposed Respondents	No appearance

WARREN CJ
BEACH AJA:

The applicant, Mr Shaw, has had a number of costs orders made against him. On 7, 10 and 11 October 2011 Wood AsJ made orders taxing the costs. Mr Shaw then attempted to file notices, dated 24 October 2011, objecting to the orders under r 63.56.1. The Prothonotary refused to accept the notices for filing. Mr Shaw then applied under r 27.06(3) for an order directing the Prothonotary to accept the notices for filing. On 23 May 2012 Hargrave J, having considered the matter on the papers, refused the application and published brief written reasons. Mr Shaw now seeks leave to appal against Hargrave J’s decision.

Mr Shaw’s application for leave to appeal was filed on 12 June 2012. It was made out of time. In his affidavit in support of the application Mr Shaw deposes that he was not notified of Hargrave J’s order and that he did not receive it until 6 June 2012. During the oral hearing of the application, Mr Shaw expressed general dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Supreme Court Registry, which he described as an ‘outrage’. Mr Shaw asserted that the Registry did not assist him with the drafting of his notices of objection and that its staff were generally unhelpful in responding to his requests and inquiries. He complained that the Registry took too long to notify him of Hargrave J’s order, causing him to miss the deadline for filing his application for leave to appeal.

Part of the Registry’s role is to provide a service to the profession and to the community. It is unnecessary to embark on an inquiry into whether in this case the service provided by the Registry was in some way deficient because, in any event, it could not affect the disposition of this application. This is because, leaving aside the issue of the extension of time, Mr Shaw’s application should fail on its merits. Nothing more needs to be said about the lateness of the application. We would note, however, that while the Registry tries to assist self-represented litigants, there are limits to how far it can go. The Registry is not there to provide legal advice. Nor can it become partisan or be seen to do so.

The dispute between Mr Shaw and the respondents has had a long and tortuous history, including three decisions of the Court of Appeal and numerous…

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 Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd & Anor 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: [2012] VSCA 189
Decision Date: 16 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shaw v Yarranova Pty Ltd & Anor involves an application for leave to appeal a decision rendered by the County Court of Victoria. The primary dispute revolves around a claim for unpaid wages and associated entitlements. The applicant, Shaw, is seeking to appeal against the County Court's decision, which dismissed his claim in part. Yarranova Pty Ltd and another respondent are the entities against whom Shaw is appealing.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of certain provisions of employment law, particularly those related to the calculation and payment of entitlements. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the County Court had erred in its application of the law, which led to the dismissal of Shaw's claim. Another significant issue was whether the County Court's decision was so palpably wrong as to warrant an appeal.

The court found that while the County Court's decision was correct in certain respects, there were errors in the application of the law that warranted an appeal. Specifically, the court identified that the County Court had failed to properly account for certain statutory entitlements and had misapplied a key provision of the employment law. The court held that these errors were significant enough to warrant a review by the higher court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was granted, and the case will now proceed to the Court of Appeal for further consideration. The final orders included the granting of leave to appeal and the setting aside of the County Court's decision in part.

Orders