TEY -v- CITY OF PERTH [2006] WASCA 211

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASCA 211
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:61/2006	Heard:	3 OCTOBER 2006
Coram:	STEYTLER P WHEELER JA	Delivered:	3/10/06
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time to appeal refused
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	KOK YONG TEY CITY OF PERTH
Catchwords:	Turns on own facts
Legislation:	City of Perth Parking Local Law 1999 Criminal Code (WA), s 22, s 24
Case References:	Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 218 CLR 493 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : TEY -v- CITY OF PERTH [2006] WASCA 211 CORAM : STEYTLER P

WHEELER JA

HEARD : 3 OCTOBER 2006 DELIVERED : 3 OCTOBER 2006 FILE NO/S : CACV 61 of 2006 BETWEEN : KOK YONG TEY

Applicant

AND

CITY OF PERTH

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : PULLIN J

File No : SJA 1114 of 2003, SJA 1115 of 2003

Catchwords:

Turns on own facts

Legislation:

City of Perth Parking Local Law 1999

Criminal Code (WA), s 22, s 24

(Page 2)

Result:

Extension of time to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

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

Ostrowski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 218 CLR 493

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER P: I agree with Wheeler JA.

2 WHEELER JA: There are a variety of applications made by the applicant. She seeks an extension of time to appeal a decision of Pullin J refusing leave to appeal against conviction, in respect of two convictions. She also seeks certain interim orders relating to the suspension of her licence. I would refuse the extension of time on the basis that neither appeal can possibly succeed.

3 The background is as follows. The two offences in question were parking offences. Referring to the original appeal numbers in this Court, number 114 of 2003 related to an offence allegedly committed on 3 August 2002, and there is a transcript in relation to that matter. Number 115 of 2003 is an offence allegedly committed on 14 August, and in relation to which we have no materials. However, the applicant has been able to describe the circumstances of that latter offence and for present purposes I am content to accept the circumstances as they have been explained by her.

4 In relation to 114, the charge was that the applicant had parked at 1.41 pm in Lake Street, Northbridge in an area set aside for vehicles of a different class under the by-laws. The by-laws in question are the City of Perth Parking Local Law 1999 and the relevant by-law for the purpose of that charge is 2.3, which provides:

"A person must not stop or…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tey v City of Perth and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] WASCA 211
Decision Date: 3 OCTOBER 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tey v City of Perth, the plaintiff sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia. The City of Perth was the defendant. The matter before the Supreme Court was a procedural one, concerning whether the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time to appeal the lower court's decision. The legal issues before the Court were whether the plaintiff had a sufficient reason to warrant an extension of time, and whether an extension should be granted on the basis of the circumstances presented. The Court found that the plaintiff's reasons for the extension were insufficient and did not warrant an extension of time. The Court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the failure to appeal within the prescribed time was due to any fault or neglect on their part, and that the extension should not be granted. The Court further found that the plaintiff's reasons for the extension were not exceptional circumstances, and that the extension should not be granted on that basis either. The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to appeal the Magistrates Court's decision. The Court did not make any orders in relation to the extension of time, and the plaintiff's appeal was consequently dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time to appeal refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.