SIMS -v- JOOSTE [2015] WASCA 170

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 170
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	31/08/2015
Case No:	CACV:128/2014	Heard:	7 AUGUST 2015
Coram:	BUSS JA BEECH J	Delivered:	7/08/15
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS JAMES CECIL INNES JOOSTE
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appellant ordered by the trial judge to pay the respondent's costs of the action Application for a stay or suspension order Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 15
Case References:	Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASCA 307; (2003) 28 WAR 308 Ladang Jalong (Australia) Pty Ltd v Callander [2005] WASCA 203 Sims v Jooste [No 2] [2014] WASC 373(S) Sims v Jooste [No 2] [2014] WASC 373; (2014) 103 ACSR 269 Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [2012] WASCA 168.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SIMS -v- JOOSTE [2015] WASCA 170 CORAM : BUSS JA

BEECH J

HEARD : 7 AUGUST 2015 DELIVERED : 7 AUGUST 2015 PUBLISHED : 31 AUGUST 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 128 of 2014 BETWEEN : DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS

Appellant

AND

JAMES CECIL INNES JOOSTE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : KENNETH MARTIN J

Citation : SIMS -v- JOOSTE [No 2] [2014] WASC 373

File No : CIV 1991 of 2011

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appellant ordered by the trial judge to pay the respondent's costs of the action - Application for a stay or suspension order - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA), s 15

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : No appearance

Respondent : Ms C L Donald

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Bennett + Co

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

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASCA 307; (2003) 28 WAR 308
Ladang Jalong (Australia) Pty Ltd v Callander [2005] WASCA 203
Sims v Jooste [No 2] [2014] WASC 373(S)
Sims v Jooste [No 2] [2014] WASC 373; (2014) 103 ACSR 269
Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [2012] WASCA 168.

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: In CIV 1991 of 2011 the appellant, as plaintiff, sued the respondent, as defendant, for defamation. The appellant alleged that the respondent defamed him on 10 June 2010 by words concerning him which appeared on an internet website known as 'HotCopper'.

2 On 10 October 2014, after a trial in the Supreme Court before Kenneth Martin J, the appellant's action was dismissed. See Sims v Jooste [No 2] [2014] WASC 373; (2014) 103 ACSR 269.

3 On 5 November 2014, the trial judge made detailed orders as to costs, including an order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the action, including certain reserved costs,…

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 Sims v Jooste

Details

AGLC: Sims v Jooste [2015] WASCA 170
Case: [2015] WASCA 170
Decision Date: 31 AUGUST 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sims v Jooste involved an appeal by the first respondent against an order of the trial judge. The trial judge had directed the appellant to pay the first respondent's costs of the action. The matter was brought before the court to determine the validity of the trial judge's order and the circumstances under which the first respondent's costs were to be paid. The court had to consider whether the trial judge's order was appropriate and whether the appellant's application for a stay or suspension order should be granted.

The legal issues that the court had to decide centred on the appropriateness of the trial judge's order and the circumstances under which the first respondent's costs were to be paid. The court had to examine the application for a stay or suspension order and determine whether it was warranted based on the facts of the case. The primary focus was on whether the trial judge's order was justified and whether there were any grounds to suspend or stay the payment of the first respondent's costs.

The court found that the trial judge's order was appropriate and that the appellant's application for a stay or suspension order was not warranted. The court concluded that the application turned on its own facts and that there were no grounds to grant the stay or suspension. The court dismissed the application, upholding the trial judge's order that the appellant pay the first respondent's costs of the action. The reasoning was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the merits of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.