Slack v Hayes - [2020] WADC 108

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   SLACK -v- HAYES [2020] WADC 108
CORAM:   LEMONIS DCJ
HEARD:   24 JANUARY & 19 MARCH 2020
DELIVERED          :   31 JULY 2020
FILE NO/S:   APP 74 of 2019
BETWEEN:   MATTHEW PHILLIP SLACK
Appellant
AND
TRUDY HAYES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE FLYNN
File Number            :   PER/RO/CIV/3427/2019

Catchwords:

Appeal from dismissal of application for final violence restraining order - Error by learned magistrate in making findings of fact

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed in part
Parties to provide further submissions directed to what orders should now be made

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr M L Bennett
Respondent	:	Mr A McDonald

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Bennett & Co
Respondent	:	Pragma Legal

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

Absolute Analogue Inc v Sundance Resources Ltd [2015] WASCA 168
Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36
Woodley v Woodley [2018] WASCA 149

LEMONIS DCJ:

This appeal is brought pursuant to s 64 of the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). It is from a decision of the learned magistrate declining to make a violence restraining order (VRO) in favour of the appellant, Mr Slack, against the respondent, Ms Hayes.
At the time of the hearing before the learned magistrate, Mr Slack was the chief executive officer of the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (BTAC), which position he had held since March 2016. Ms Hayes is a former director of BTAC and is a member of it. Since Mr Slack's appointment as chief executive officer he and Ms Hayes have continuously been in disagreement regarding BTAC's operations.
The principal matters relied upon by Mr Slack in support of his application related to events which occurred at an anniversary dinner of BTAC held at Fraser's Restaurant in Kings Park on 15 September 2018, and at the annual general meeting of BTAC held on 19 October 2018. The events relied on comprise alleged verbal threats made, or instigated, by Ms Hayes towards Mr Slack. There is no suggestion of any physical act having been committed by Ms Hayes, or by anyone at her instigation, against Mr Slack.
On 17 October 2018, Mr Slack obtained an interim VRO against Ms Hayes. Ms Hayes objected to the interim order becoming a final order and a final order hearing was heard before the learned magistrate on 2 September 2019. The learned magistrate delivered oral reasons for decision on 3 September 2019. The learned magistrate dismissed Mr Slack's application.
The learned magistrate held that he was not satisfied that the threshold criteria for the making of a VRO set out in s 11A of the Restraining Orders Act had been established.[1] In coming to this finding, the learned magistrate was not satisfied Ms Hayes made, or instigated, the threats to Mr Slack which he described in his evidence.
[1] ts 9; Reasons for decision, first paragraph.
The learned magistrate held that 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 Slack v Hayes

Details

AGLC: Slack v Hayes [2020] WADC 108
Case: [2020] WADC 108
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Slack v Hayes, the matter was brought before the court by the appellant, Slack, seeking a final violence restraining order against the respondent, Hayes. The appellant alleged that Hayes had engaged in violent conduct against him, necessitating the issuance of a final restraining order. The case was initially heard in the Magistrates Court, where the application for the restraining order was dismissed. The appellant subsequently appealed to a higher court, challenging the magistrate's decision and alleging that there had been errors in the findings of fact.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate had erred in making certain findings of fact that led to the dismissal of the application for a final violence restraining order. The appellant argued that the magistrate had overlooked critical evidence and misapplied the relevant legal principles in reaching their decision. The court was required to review the magistrate's findings to determine if they were legally sound and based on the proper application of the law.

The court examined the evidence presented and the magistrate's reasoning in detail. It found that the magistrate had indeed made errors in the assessment of the evidence and the application of the law. The court concluded that these errors were material and led to an incorrect outcome. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the original decision of the magistrate was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The final orders of the court included the annulment of the magistrate's decision and the remanding of the case back to the Magistrates Court. The court emphasised that the magistrate should thoroughly reconsider the evidence and apply the correct legal standards when making their determination on the application for a final violence restraining order.

Orders