The Registrar of Motor Vehicles v Thiele

[2012] SASCFC 5

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Full Court: Permission to Appeal)

THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES v THIELE

[2012] SASCFC 5

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice White and The Honourable Justice Blue)

7 February 2012

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - BY LEAVE OF COURT - GENERALLY

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT - FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT - OTHER FINDINGS

Application for permission to appeal to the Full Court in private - ground 4 of the applicant's Notice of Appeal raised a question of fact - permission to appeal is required to appeal on a question of fact pursuant to s 43 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA).

Held: permission to appeal to the Full Court granted on ground 4 set out in the Notice of Appeal.

Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 98ZA, s 98Z; Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 290; District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 43, referred to.

THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES v THIELE
[2012] SASCFC 5

Full Court:  Doyle CJ, White and Blue JJ

1. THE COURT:       The Registrar of Motor Vehicles has applied for permission to appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court against a decision by a Judge of the District Court.

2. The application for permission to appeal has been considered by the Court comprising Doyle CJ, White J and Blue J.  The application has been dealt with by the Court under rule 290 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA).

3. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles has appealed against the decision by a Judge of the District Court. The Judge’s decision dealt with an appeal to the District Court pursuant to s 98ZA of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) (the Act).

4. The Registrar of Motor Vehicles had made a decision under the Act cancelling Ms Thiele’s driver’s licence. That decision was confirmed by a Review Committee exercising powers conferred by s 98Z of the Act. The District Court Judge rescinded the decision by the Review Committee and by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, and substituted an order directing the Registrar to issue to Ms Thiele a permit subject to certain conditions.

5. The appeal against the decision by the District Court Judge is an appeal as of right. But one of the grounds of appeal appears to raise a question of fact, and so by s 43 of the District Court Act 1991 (SA) permission to appeal is required on that ground.

6. The Court is unanimously of the opinion that it is appropriate to grant permission to appeal on ground 4 in the Notice of Appeal, the ground of appeal in question.  It is appropriate to make that order as the appeal on the other grounds will in any event be heard by the Full Court, and because ground 4 is closely linked to the grounds on which an appeal lies without permission.

7. Accordingly, the Court orders that permission to appeal be granted on ground 4 of the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal.