Shenton v Hughes - [2015] WADC 4

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: SHENTON -v- HUGHES [2015] WADC 4

CORAM: LEVY DCJ

HEARD: 17 DECEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 28 JANUARY 2015

FILE NO/S: APP 32 of 2014

BETWEEN: RICHARD LAURENCE SHENTON
Appellant
AND
BRYAN HUGHES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE ZEMPILAS
File No  :FR MINOR 568 of 2013

Catchwords:

Appeal - Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 - Extension of time to appeal - Distinction between judgment and order - Natural justice

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004

Result:

Appeal allowed in part

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr M I Lenhoff

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Respondent: Williams & Hughes

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

Bienstein v Bienstein [2003] HCA 7; (2003) 195 ALR 225
Dousi v Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 374
Grant v Mansom [2013] WADC 53
Licul v Corney [1976] HCA 6; (1976) 180 CLR 213
Meddings v Council of City of Gold Coast [1988] 1 Qd R 528
Shenton v Touchstone Farms Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 261

LEVY DCJ: This is an appeal brought by Richard Laurence Shenton (the appellant) against the decision of Magistrate Zempilas sitting at Fremantle Magistrates Court in the civil jurisdiction on 19 February 2014. The appellant appeals against the magistrate's decision to refuse to allow an extension of time to appeal against a registrar's decision to dismiss his claim and allow a default judgment against him in the sum of $10,000 plus $116.95 in costs.

Background

On 28 March 2013 the appellant lodged a minor case claim in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia against Bryan Hughes, as receiver and manager of Mt Richon Investments Pty Ltd trading as the receiver and manager (the respondent). The claim was brought pursuant to pt 4 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (MCCPA) and was expressed as being in the sum of $6,000 plus fees of $131.90. In essence, the claim was for monies received by the respondent in the nature of bonuses earned in relation to a horse called 'Counter Offer'. The appellant contended that he was entitled to receive these monies which were in fact, according to him, paid to the respondent.
I note that there is a long history of dispute between the parties. This includes two previous deeds of settlement between the parties. The first deed of settlement was dated 17 September 2010. The second deed of settlement was dated 15 July 2011. The deeds of settlement relate to claims by the appellant against the respondent. I shall return to these deeds later in my reasons.
It is not necessary to go through the entire history of the matter, but note that on 7 May 2013 the respondent wrote to the Magistrates Court asking that the appellant's claim be dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent brought an application to formally have the claim dismissed. The respondent also sought to have the venue for 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 Shenton v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Shenton v Hughes [2015] WADC 4
Case: [2015] WADC 4
Decision Date: 28 JANUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Shenton v Hughes involved a dispute between two parties regarding an appeal to the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The original matter was decided by a magistrate who dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff sought to appeal the decision. The legal issue that arose was whether the plaintiff could extend the time limit for appealing the decision under the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004. The plaintiff argued that the magistrate's decision was not a judgment but an order, and therefore, the time limit for appealing should be extended. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the decision was a judgment and that the time limit for appealing could not be extended.

The court found that the magistrate's decision was a judgment, not an order. The court held that the distinction between a judgment and an order is important because different time limits apply to appeals from each. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of time to appeal because the plaintiff had not demonstrated any special circumstances that warranted an extension. Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff had not been denied natural justice in the original proceedings.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to an extension of time to appeal the magistrate's decision. The court found that the distinction between a judgment and an order is significant, and the time limits for appeals from each are different. The court also held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any special circumstances that warranted an extension of time to appeal. Finally, the court held that the plaintiff had not been denied natural justice in the original proceedings.

Orders