Tey v Valuer-General - [2015] WASCA 244

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: TEY -v- VALUER-GENERAL [2015] WASCA 244

CORAM: BUSS JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 11 NOVEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 3 DECEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CACV 156 of 2015

BETWEEN: KOK YONG TEY
Appellant
AND
VALUER-GENERAL
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :JUDGE PARRY (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)
File No  :DR 59 of 2015

Catchwords:

Appeal commenced or purportedly commenced against interlocutory decision of the State Administrative Tribunal - Appeal commenced after appellant had been prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) - Whether appeal competent - Whether appeal and application for leave to appeal should be dismissed as abuse of process

Application by appellant for a stay of interlocutory order of the State Administrative Tribunal - Appeal lacking merit - Application for stay dismissed

Legislation:

Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 5, s 6

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr A J Sefton

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

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

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASCA 307; (2003) 28 WAR 308
Michael Mischin MLC, Attorney General for Western Australia v Tey [2015] WASC 146
Tradesman Technologies Pty Ltd v Ameduri [2012] WASCA 168

REASONS OF THE COURT: On 11 November 2015, the court heard the appellant's application for a stay, filed 3 November 2015, and a related application by the respondent to the effect that the appeal should be dismissed or struck out on the basis that it had been instituted in contravention of s 5(1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA) (Act).
The appeal (if competent) is in relation to an interlocutory decision dated 16 October 2015[1] of Deputy President, Judge Parry, made in proceedings in the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The interlocutory decision was to the effect that the SAT proceedings would be listed for final hearing on 12 November 2015.
[1] The decision was an extempore decision recorded in the transcript of proceedings before the Tribunal on 16 October 2015 (primary reasons).
At the conclusion of the hearing in this court on 11 November 2015, the court dismissed the appellant's application for a stay, and said that it would subsequently provide reasons. These are the reasons for dismissing the stay. The court also said on that occasion that it would reserve its decision in relation to the respondent's application to strike out the appeal. These reasons also deal with that application.
Also on 11 November 2015, the court granted the appellant leave to file and serve her affidavit sworn 10 November 2015 and her written submissions dated 10 November 2015. Also, costs were reserved.

The SAT proceedings

20 February 2015 - 15 October 2015[2]

[2] The chronology is taken from the primary reasons, with reference to transcript…

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 Valuer-General 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: [2015] WASCA 244
Decision Date: 3 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Tey v Valuer-General involved a challenge against an interlocutory decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. The appellant sought to appeal the tribunal's decision, despite being previously prohibited from instituting proceedings under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act 2002 (WA). The court was required to determine whether the appeal was competent and whether it, along with the application for leave to appeal, should be dismissed as an abuse of process. Additionally, the appellant applied for a stay of the interlocutory order of the State Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appeal was valid given the appellant's prior prohibition under the Vexatious Proceedings Restriction Act, and whether the appeal and the application for leave to appeal constituted an abuse of process. The court had to assess the merits of the appeal to determine if the appellant's actions warranted dismissal under the Act. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the application for a stay of the interlocutory order was justified.

The court concluded that the appeal was not competent because the appellant had been prohibited from instituting proceedings. It found that the appeal and the application for leave to appeal were an abuse of process. Given the lack of merit in the appeal, the court dismissed the application for a stay of the interlocutory order of the State Administrative Tribunal. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal restrictions on vexatious litigation and the consequences of disregarding such prohibitions.

Orders