Stewart v Hames - [2020] WASCA 9

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   STEWART -v- HAMES [2020] WASCA 9
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   17 JANUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   17 JANUARY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   23 JANUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CACV 124 of 2019
BETWEEN:   DENIS STEWART
Appellant
AND
KIM HAMES
First Respondent
GERALDINE CARLTON
Second Respondent
CHRISTINE CULLEN
Third Respondent
GEOFFREY WILLIAMSON
Fourth Respondent
GORDON SHYMKO
Fifth Respondent
BIJU THOMAS
Sixth Respondent
RAJ SEKHON
Seventh Respondent
DANIELA VECCHIO
Eighth Respondent
SHAROAN DELAHUNTY
Ninth Respondent
SOUTH METROPOLITAN HEALTH SERVICE
Tenth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   PRIOR DCJ
File Number            :   CIV 3131 of 2016

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Show cause - Appeal against interlocutory decision dismissing application to join additional defendants - Whether grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospects of success - Whether complaint of unfair hearing had any proper basis - Whether any arguable error disclosed in judge's reasoning - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 18 r 6(2)(b)
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43(2)(g)(i)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	No appearance
Fourth Respondent	:	No appearance
Fifth Respondent	:	No appearance
Sixth Respondent	:	No appearance
Seventh Respondent	:	No appearance
Eighth Respondent	:	No appearance
Ninth Respondent	:	No appearance
Tenth Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	No appearance
Fourth Respondent	:	No appearance
Fifth Respondent	:	No appearance
Sixth Respondent	:	No appearance
Seventh Respondent	:	No appearance
Eighth Respondent	:	No appearance
Ninth Respondent	:	No appearance
Tenth Respondent	:	No appearance

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

Manolakis v Carter [2008] FCAFC 183
Stewart v Hames [2019] WASCA 127

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Introduction

This matter came to a hearing on 17 January 2020 by way of a registrar's notice to attend dated 17 December 2019 for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(i) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA).
The appeal is against an interlocutory decision of Prior DCJ in an action commenced by the appellant in 2016.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 17 January 2020, we dismissed the appeal and said that we would provide written reasons. These are our reasons.

Background

The general history of this matter is set out in an earlier decision of this court in Stewart v Hames.[1] In broad terms, the appellant commenced proceedings in the District Court against the respondents. The appellant was a former patient of a unit within Rockingham General Hospital. At all material times:
1.The first respondent was the Minister for Health for the State of Western Australia.
2.The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents were…

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 Stewart v Hames

Details

AGLC: Stewart v Hames [2020] WASCA 9
Case: [2020] WASCA 9
Decision Date: 23 JANUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Stewart v Hames involved a legal dispute where the original plaintiff sought to join additional defendants to a proceeding. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the trial judge dismissed the application to add these defendants. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with the interlocutory decision, appealed to a higher court, arguing that the dismissal was unjust and procedurally unfair. The core legal issues revolved around whether the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospects of success, if there was any valid complaint regarding the fairness of the initial hearing, and whether the trial judge's reasoning contained any arguable errors.

The appellate court meticulously examined the grounds of appeal and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success. The court found that the plaintiff had not substantiated any claims of unfair hearing, nor had they identified any arguable errors in the trial judge's reasoning. The appellate court determined that the application to join additional defendants was correctly dismissed based on the merits and procedural fairness of the original decision. The court held that the plaintiff's appeal lacked merit and did not disclose any substantial legal issues warranting a reversal of the trial judge's decision.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision to deny the plaintiff's application to join additional defendants remained intact. The appellate court's decision underscored the importance of a robust basis for appeals against interlocutory rulings and the necessity for plaintiffs to demonstrate clear grounds for procedural unfairness and legal error in such cases. This ruling serves as a reminder for parties in similar situations to ensure that their appeals are well-founded and substantiated with adequate evidence and legal arguments.

Orders