SINCLAIR -v- THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH [2007] WASCA 281

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 281
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:110/2007	Heard:	22 NOVEMBER 2007
Coram:	PULLIN JA NEWNES AJA	Delivered:	21/11/07
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LINDSAY KAY SINCLAIR THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH in his capacity as the Board of KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Dismissal of appeal by reason of noncompliance with an order of the court Turns on own facts
Legislation:	District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 79 Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(ii)
Case References:	Allmark v Mossensons [2006] WASCA 127 Sinclair v Minister for Health [2007] WASCA 253

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SINCLAIR -v- THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH [2007] WASCA 281 CORAM : PULLIN JA

NEWNES AJA

HEARD : 22 NOVEMBER 2007 DELIVERED : 22 NOVEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 110 of 2007 BETWEEN : LINDSAY KAY SINCLAIR

Appellant

AND

THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH in his capacity as the Board of KING EDWARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : GOETZE DCJ

File No : CIV 4532 of 1994

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Dismissal of appeal by reason of noncompliance with an order of the court - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 79

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(ii)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : No appearance

Respondent : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Dibbs Abbott Stillman

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

Allmark v Mossensons [2006] WASCA 127
Sinclair v Minister for Health [2007] WASCA 253

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN JA: This is an appeal again interlocutory orders by Judge Goetze on 6 July 2007. The appeal notice says that the decision appealed against was made on 6 July 2007, but after the judicial officer's name there is a note which reads:

Dismissal of plaintiff's appeals 14 and 19 February and 2 March 2007 and applications 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 12 March 2007.

2 An examination of the District Court record reveals that the only order extracted on that day relates to leave which was granted to the defendant to issue subpoenas with consequential orders allowing the parties to inspect documents and for payment of costs.

3 The associate's record reveals that there were also orders granting the appellant liberty to amend her statement of claim with consequential orders permitting amendment of the defence and reply and for the plaintiff to issue any request for further and better particulars of defence. However an examination of the transcript of the hearing on 6 July 2007 reveals that there were also before Judge Goetze a…

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 Sinclair v The Minister for Health 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: [2007] WASCA 281
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sinclair v The Minister for Health involved an appeal against the dismissal of an application for judicial review. The applicant, Sinclair, sought to challenge the decisions made by the Minister for Health regarding certain health policies. The Federal Court of Australia was the tribunal that heard and subsequently dismissed the appeal. The Court was required to determine whether the appeal should be dismissed due to Sinclair's failure to comply with a previous court order.

The central legal issue in this matter was whether the non-compliance with a prior court order warranted the dismissal of the appeal. The Court needed to assess the specific circumstances surrounding the non-compliance and determine whether the case should turn on its own merits. The Court was tasked with interpreting the rules of practice and procedure as they apply to appeals and ensuring that justice was served in accordance with the legal framework.

In its reasoning, the Court found that the non-compliance with the prior order was significant and directly impacted the fairness and efficiency of the judicial process. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed because Sinclair's failure to comply with the order demonstrated a lack of respect for the judicial process and undermined the integrity of the legal proceedings. The Court emphasised that adherence to court orders is crucial for maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that legal processes are conducted in an orderly and respectful manner. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the orders made by the lower court were upheld.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the decisions made by the lower court. This outcome underscores the importance of following court orders and the consequences that may arise from non-compliance in judicial review proceedings. The Court's decision serves as a reminder of the necessity for parties to adhere to legal requirements and respect the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.