Stuart v Hanna - [2018] WASCA 181

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   STUART -v- HANNA [2018] WASCA 181
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA

HEARD:   16 OCTOBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   16 OCTOBER 2018
PUBLISHED           :   16 OCTOBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACV 68 of 2018
BETWEEN:   RICHARD ANTHONY STUART
Appellant

AND

JULIAN PHILIP HANNA
First Respondent

AND

TERRENCE RONALD GRAMMER
Second Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   TOTTLE J
Citation: STUART -v- HANNA [No 3] [2018] WASC 208
File Number             :   CIV 1997 of 2012

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal against refusal of application to amend writ and statement of claim - Turns on own facts
Practice and procedure - Application to adduce additional evidence in the appeal - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 60(1)(f)

Result:

Application for leave to adduce additional evidence dismissed
Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr S J Howells
First Respondent	:	Mr S D Hubbard
Second Respondent	:	Mr P Lafferty

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Ilberys Lawyers Pty Ltd
First Respondent	:	DLA Piper Australia
Second Respondent	:	Armeli & Moloney Lawyers

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

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kelbush Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] WASCA 14; (2016) 49 WAR 374
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92; (2013) 45 WAR 116
Sovereign Grange Pty Ltd v A V Truck Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] WASCA 142
The State of Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40
Traynor v Cunningham (No 2) [2017] WASCA 159
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285

REASONS OF THE COURT:

Introduction

The appellant (Mr Stuart) appeals against orders of the primary judge dismissing his application for leave to amend his writ and re‑amend his statement of claim in the primary proceedings.[1] The proposed amendments would have joined two additional parties to the primary proceedings, Mr Richard James Yeates and Mr Terrence Ernest James Streeter. The proposed amendments would also have introduced a new cause of action claiming that the first respondent (Mr Hanna), Mr Yeates and Mr Streeter conspired to injure Mr Stuart by unlawful means.
[1] The primary judge's reasons for making those orders are published as Stuart v Hanna (No 3) [2018] WASC 208 (Primary Decision).
On 16 October 2018, the matter came before this court to consider:
(1)Mr Stuart's application in an appeal filed on 11 September 2018 (which essentially sought leave to adduce additional evidence in the appeal); and
(2)Mr Stuart's application for leave to appeal against the primary judge's interlocutory decision.
At the conclusion of the hearing we made the following orders in the appeal:
(1)The appellant's application in an appeal filed on 11 September 2018 is dismissed.
(2)Leave to appeal is refused.
(3)The appeal is dismissed.
(4)The appellant is to pay the costs of each of 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 Stuart v Hanna

Details

AGLC: Stuart v Hanna [2018] WASCA 181
Case: [2018] WASCA 181
Decision Date: 16 OCTOBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stuart v Hanna, the plaintiff, Stuart, sought to amend his writ and statement of claim to add further particulars regarding his claims against the defendant, Hanna. Stuart’s application was initially dismissed by the lower court. Stuart then appealed this decision, arguing that the lower court had erred in refusing the application to amend. Additionally, Stuart sought to adduce additional evidence during the appeal process to support his application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the lower court's refusal to permit the amendment of the writ and statement of claim was justified. The court also had to determine if the additional evidence presented during the appeal process could be considered. The central question was whether the lower court's decision to refuse the amendment was an error and if this error warranted an appeal.

The court examined the circumstances of the case to determine if the refusal to amend was justified. It found that the lower court's decision was based on the specific facts of the case, where the amendment would have been futile or would cause undue delay. The court held that the refusal to amend was correct given the circumstances. Regarding the additional evidence, the court ruled that such evidence could not be considered unless it was directly relevant to the original appeal grounds. The court concluded that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it.

The court ordered that Stuart's appeal be dismissed and that no further amendments be allowed. Additionally, the court ruled that the additional evidence presented during the appeal could not be considered and thus had no bearing on the outcome of the appeal.

Orders