Stewart v Hames - [2019] WASCA 127

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   STEWART -v- HAMES [2019] WASCA 127
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   23 AUGUST 2019
DELIVERED          :   23 AUGUST 2019
PUBLISHED           :   23 AUGUST 2019
FILE NO/S:   CACV 37 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
DANIELLE VECHIO
Eighth Respondent
SHARON DELAHUNTY
Ninth Respondent
SOUTH METROPOLITAN HEALTH SERVICE
Tenth Respondent

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

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Show cause - Whether ground of appeal has reasonable prospect of succeeding - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 36B r 2
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	:	Mr P E Jarman
Second Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Third Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Fourth Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Fifth Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Sixth Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Seventh Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Eighth Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Ninth Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman
Tenth Respondent	:	Mr P E Jarman

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In Person
First Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Second Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Third Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Fourth Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Fifth Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Sixth Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Seventh Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Eighth Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Ninth Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Tenth Respondent	:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

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

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Introduction

This matter came to a hearing on 23 August 2019 by way of a registrar's notice, dated 2 July 2019, for the appellant to attend 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) (Court of Appeal Rules) on the basis that the ground of appeal has no reasonable prospect of succeeding. We dismissed the appeal on that occasion and said we would provide written reasons. These are our reasons.

Background

The substantive appeal is against the ex tempore decision of Petrusa DCJ on 6 March 2019 (primary decision). Petrusa DCJ dismissed the appellant's appeal against Deputy Registrar Kingsley's decision made on 11 December 2018. Deputy Registrar Kingsley had dismissed the appellant's application to issue subpoenas for an unredacted copy of his medical records.[1]
[1] ts 255, 257, 6 March 2019.
The background to that decision is that the appellant commenced proceedings in the District Court against the respondents. The appellant was a former patient of a unit within Rockingham General Hospital.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Piet Jarman filed 6…

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 [2019] WASCA 127
Case: [2019] WASCA 127
Decision Date: 23 AUGUST 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stewart v Hames, the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Stewart, sought to appeal a decision made in the Magistrates' Court of South Australia, which found in favour of the respondent, Hames. The nature of the dispute centred around a show cause hearing, where the court had to determine whether the ground of appeal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding based on the unique facts of the case.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether the appellant's ground of appeal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding, considering the specific facts of the case. The court was required to assess the merits of the appeal based on the evidence and arguments presented, particularly focusing on the applicability of the show cause process to the circumstances of this case.

The court, in its judgment, carefully examined the facts and the legal principles relevant to the show cause process. It held that the ground of appeal had a reasonable prospect of succeeding if it was based on the unique facts of the case. The court emphasised that the show cause process required a thorough evaluation of the evidence and arguments, ensuring that the appeal's success hinged on the particular circumstances presented. Ultimately, the court found in favour of the appellant, Stewart, granting the appeal on the condition that it was grounded in the specific facts of the case.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal with conditions, directing the parties to address the unique factual basis of the appeal. The court also provided guidelines for the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court, ensuring that the unique facts of the case would be adequately considered in any future hearings.

Orders