Legal Research
Cases
SHUTTLEWORTH and PEARSON

SHUTTLEWORTH and PEARSON

Case [2018] WASAT 112 31 October 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: BUILDING SERVICES (COMPLAINT RESOLUTION AND ADMINISTRATION) ACT 2011 (WA)
CITATION:   SHUTTLEWORTH and PEARSON [2018] WASAT 112
MEMBER:   MR D AITKEN (SENIOR MEMBER)
HEARD:   2 AUGUST 2018
DELIVERED          :   31 OCTOBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CC 611 of 2018
BETWEEN:   DANIEL SHUTTLEWORTH
Applicant
AND
TREVOR TERRY PEARSON
Respondent

Catchwords:

Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) Building service complaint Applicant a resident of Queensland - Jurisdiction - Whether there is a matter between residents of different States for the purposes of s 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution

Legislation:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 5, s 5(1), s 11(1)(d), s 36(1), s 38, s 38(1)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1990 (Cth), s 75, s 75(iv), s 77(iii), Ch III
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 7
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 31
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39(2)
State Administrative Tribunal Act, s 15(1), s 16(1)

Result:

Preliminary issue determined
Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	In Person

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	N/A
Respondent	:	N/A

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

Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15; (2018) 92 ALJR 423
CGU Insurance v Blakeley (2016) 259 CLR 339
Cox v Journeaux (1934) 52 CLR 282
Crouch v Commissioner for Railways (1985) 159 CLR 22
Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577
Erujin Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2010] WASC 326
Fencott v Muller (1983) 152 CLR 570
Hartwig v Builders' Registration Board of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 138
Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34
Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 128
Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478
R v Langdon; Ex parte Langdon (1953) 88 CLR 158
R v Macdonald; Ex parte Macdonald (1953) 88 CLR 197
R v Oregan; Ex parte Oregan (1957) 97 CLR 323
Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 209 CLR 372
Re the Judiciary and Navigation Acts (1921) 29 CLR 257
Rizeq v Western Australia (2017) 91 ALJR 707
Rochford v Dayes (1989) 84 ALR 405
The Australasian Temperance and General Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited v Howe (1922) 31 CLR 290
Watson and Godfrey v Cameron (1928) 40 CLR 446
Watson v Marshall and Cade (1971) 124 CLR 621

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Introduction

This proceeding concerns a complaint (the Complaint) by the applicant, Mr Daniel Shuttleworth (Mr Shuttleworth) against the respondent, Mr Trevor Terry Pearson (Mr Pearson), which has been referred to the Tribunal by the Building Commissioner under s 11(1)(d) of the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA) (BSCRA Act).
The Complaint is a 'building service complaint' made under s 5(1) of the BSCRA Act in respect of building work carried out by Mr Pearson at 132A Star Street,…

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 SHUTTLEWORTH and PEARSON

Details

AGLC: SHUTTLEWORTH and PEARSON [2018] WASAT 112
Case: [2018] WASAT 112
Decision Date: 31 OCTOBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Shuttleworth and Pearson, who were residents of Queensland, bringing a complaint against a building service provider under the Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act 2011 (WA). The primary dispute was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the complaint under section 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution, which allows for matters between residents of different States to be heard in the Federal Court.

The legal issues at hand were whether the Building Services Act constituted a matter between residents of different States, given that the complainants were from Queensland and the service provider was based in Western Australia. This required the court to interpret the meaning of "matter" under section 75(iv) of the Constitution and whether the act of filing a complaint under the Building Services Act constituted a sufficient matter to confer Federal Court jurisdiction.

The court examined the legislative intent behind the Building Services Act and found that the act was designed to facilitate dispute resolution between consumers and service providers across states. The court reasoned that the act's provisions for cross-state complaints inherently created a matter between residents of different States. This was sufficient to establish the necessary jurisdictional criteria under section 75(iv). Therefore, the court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint brought by Shuttleworth and Pearson.

In summary, the court determined that the Building Services Act 2011 (WA) provided a matter between residents of different States, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Federal Court under section 75(iv) of the Australian Constitution. The court's decision allowed the complaint to proceed in the Federal Court, affirming its authority to handle such cross-state disputes.

Orders