Legal Research
Cases
SRA v Smith

SRA v Smith

Case [2000] NSWSC 334 19 April 2000

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: State Rail Authority v Smith [2000] NSWSC 334

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 10797/99

HEARING DATE(S): 3 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 April 2000

PARTIES :

State Rail Authority (Plaintiff)
Mark SMITH (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 6573/98

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Ms M Jerram

COUNSEL : Mr H Packer (Plaintiff)
Mr R Reitano (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Minter Ellison
Geoffrey Edwards & Co (Defendant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Public Sector Management Act 1988
Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970
Justices Legislation Amendment (Appeal) Act 1998
Justices Act 1902

CASES CITED: Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Computer Science of Australia Ltd v Lesley [1983] 6 IR 188 at 191
Eyles v Cook [(1967) 13 FLR 42]
British Motor Corporation v Chance [[1964] AR(NSW) 364]

DECISION: The summons is dismissed; The SRA is to pay Mr Smith's costs of the proceedings.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
SIMPSON J
Wednesday 19 April 2000
10797/99

STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NSW v Mark SMITH

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR :

1 By summons filed 6 April 1999 the plaintiff, the State Rail Authority of NSW, to which I will refer as “the SRA”, seeks to appeal against the decision of Ms M Jerram, Local Court Magistrate, made on 9 March 1999. Before Ms Jerram was a statement of liquidated claim brought by the present defendant, Mr Mark Smith, for payment of a sum of money to which he asserted he was entitled under the provisions of the Public Sector Management Act 1988. The claim was brought under Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970 (“the Civil Claims Act”). Ms Jerram found in favour of Mr Smith and ordered the SRA to pay the sum of $18,587.91 together with costs.
2 At the outset a question arises as to the provisions governing the entitlement of SRA to bring the appeal, and the extent of the appeal to which it is entitled. The issue between the parties in this respect is whether the SRA’s right of appeal is confined to questions of law or extends to questions of mixed fact and law. The question arises in the following way. Appeals to this Court from the Local Court were the subject of extensive legislative amendment which came into effect on 1 March 1999: Justices Legislation Amendment (Appeal) Act 1998. A new Part 5 was inserted into the Justices Act 1902. Pursuant to the new regime, s 69(2) of the Civil Claims Act confers a right of appeal to this Court upon a party to proceedings under the that Act who is dissatisfied with the judgment or order of the Local Court but the right so conferred is expressly restricted to questions of law.
3 But s 69 (3) makes the new provisions of Pt 5 of the Justices Act also applicable to appeals under sub s (2). S 104 of the Justices…

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 SRA v Smith

Details

AGLC: SRA v Smith [2000] NSWSC 334
Case: [2000] NSWSC 334
Decision Date: 19 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State Rail Authority of New South Wales (SRA) filed an appeal against the decision of Ms M Jerram, Local Court Magistrate, in the Supreme Court. Mr Mark Smith had filed a statement of liquidated claim seeking payment of a sum of money under the Public Sector Management Act 1988. The Local Court found in favour of Mr Smith and ordered the SRA to pay $18,587.91 together with costs. The SRA sought to appeal against this decision on the grounds that the magistrate had erred in law and/or fact.

The court examined the legal issues regarding the appeal process, the scope of the appeal, and the grounds for the appeal. It considered whether the appeal was limited to questions of law or if it extended to questions of mixed fact and law. The court concluded that the appeal was limited to questions of law and denied the SRA's request for leave to appeal on questions of mixed fact and law.

The court then examined the grounds for the appeal and found that most of the grounds raised questions of fact rather than questions of law. The court held that the magistrate's findings of fact were not erroneous and that the ultimate finding of fact was open to the magistrate based on the evidence presented. The court also found that the magistrate properly appreciated the meaning of "pressing necessity" and applied the relevant legal tests.

The appeal was dismissed, and the SRA was ordered to pay Mr Smith's costs of the proceedings. The court's decision affirmed the magistrate's finding that Mr Smith's termination of employment with the SRA was due to "other pressing necessity" within the meaning of the Public Sector Management Act 1988.

Orders