Valassis v Lawson

[1998] HCATrans 45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S54 of 1996

B e t w e e n -

DENNIS VALASSIS

Applicant

and

L. LAWSON, Magistrate

First Respondent

GORDON OLDFIELD MOTORS PTY LTD

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 13 FEBRUARY 1998, AT 12.52 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D. VALASSIS appeared in person.

HAYNE J:   Mr Valassis, I have a certificate from the Registrar that he has been informed that the first respondent and the second respondent in this matter do not wish to be represented at the hearing of the application for special leave and that they will submit to any order of the Court save as to costs.

Now, Mr Valassis, you know, do you not, that time limits are imposed by this Court on applicants for special leave and that you have 20 minutes in which to present your application, is that so?

MR VALASSIS:   Thank you, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   Yes.  Yes, Mr Valassis.

MR VALASSIS:   I enter to the first proceedings, No 54 of 1996, Dennis Valassis v L. Lawson.

HAYNE J:   Yes.  It is only that application with which we deal at the moment.

MR VALASSIS:   Yes, one application, yes.  This application.  Your Honour, further to the application of special leave to appeal, I have been lodged to the Court applicant’s list of authorities documents.

HAYNE J:   Yes, we have that.

MR VALASSIS:   Please, your Honour, if you enter to page 1 and 2, the second page show the defendant at the time - the applicant was the defendant at the time - lodged cross claim for $3,959.33 and the proceedings, altogether, was for $5,474.  This is a very small matter, your Honour, which should never be here in the High Court of Australia and I like to give me the opportunity to explain the reasons which I am here in High Court of Australia. 

This proceedings create by the registry of the Local Court, Manly, which never give me the opportunity to fix the car.  This dispute between the parties to fix my car with the second respondent and he never fix it in proper and I have to go to another garage and the Local Court refused to give me the opportunity to fix the car and lost cross action.

Also, the court, your Honour, set this matter to be before the arbitrator and with not my - which I did object this particular time to go this matter before the arbitrator, your Honour, because several witness should take place.  The arbitrator accept my application - the submission in support of rule 84, I suppose the cross-claim, but the arbitrator, your Honour, he never give me the opportunity to give evidence myself as I was the defendant.  This is very serious matter for me, your Honour, as I am, I suppose, immigrant, to go into the court and the court not allow the defendant to give evidence.

Now, your Honour, I appeal against the decision of the arbitrator and the Manly Local Court refused to give me the judgment.  The judgment is in pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  Now, we do not have to read through this judgment, your Honour, but I have to point out the Local Court refused to give me this to be before the court and counsel to put before the magistrate.  Now, the plaintiff - the second respondent was the plaintiff in Local Court - and his solicitor, he give evidence in to the court I did give evidence before the arbitrator and I take off and this was one of the strong foundation of the magistrate to make his decision, your Honour.

Now, please, I like to go to page 4, is underlined paragraph, which the arbitrator, he did say:

The evidence of the Defendant was given by Mr Peter Anthony Gannon -

well, this is a clear - even the arbitrator himself, he did say I never give evidence before the court at the time.  Now, further to this, your Honour, we have to say who is this particular man who give evidence on behalf of me?  He was witness.  I call to give evidence as my witness and he was the manager of New Rowley Motors which they accept to fix my car with another $4,500.  They charged me over $8,000; never fix it my car and burn my car.  The magistrate, he did have enough evidence before him to see the respondent he never fix it my car in proper way and this cost me to go to second garage and the second garage, the respondent was working for the second garage, your Honour, and since they knew they inconvenience - never fix it my car and burn my car.

I take action against the second, which is not before the court, and I suppose I did say on my affidavit what happened then.  Also, I did report to the police regarding to the second respondent he did stealing my car of my garage and he - - -

HAYNE J:   The proceeding in which you seek special leave to appeal concerns an application you made to the Supreme Court for an order directing the magistrate to state a case, is that right?

MR VALASSIS:   Yes, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   Yes.  Why is that order that the Supreme Court made wrong?

MR VALASSIS:   To my knowledge, your Honour, the points of law is all available which I did say on my affidavit all the way through to my application, amended of summary argument.  I did have all the points of law in this, your Honour, which I say the reasons which the magistrate, at the time, he been error in law.

HAYNE J:   Why was the Supreme Court wrong to refuse the order to state a case?

MR VALASSIS:   Was wrong:  section 104 of the Justice Act, your Honour, and under this justice, they should order the magistrate to state his case.

CALLINAN J:   Is that your best point, Mr Valassis?  What is your best point?  What is the main reason, the most important reason, why the Supreme Court was wrong?

MR VALASSIS:   The first reason, your Honour, thank you - - -

CALLINAN J:   The main reason.

MR VALASSIS:   The first reason, we went through.  The arbitrator, he never give me the opportunity to give evidence and he give me bill from $5,474; is coming up to $7,226.  Now, I was not responsible for this money, your Honour, because I never give evidence.  Now, the next point - this one of the strongest point.  The second point, your Honour, is the evidence is all available.  The second respondent, he never fix it, the car, in proper way like we should discuss.  Now, this is the second point.  The third point, your Honour, is I did lodge notice of motion to review the decision of the magistrate which separated the two matters which was - I tried to join the matters, the matters which against the second garage with the first garage, and the magistrate errored in law with Part 33 rule 9 of Local Court Rules. Now, this is the second point.

The other point, your Honour, which they had breached the rule is, if you have two matters or more than two matters, is under the same direction and involving common questions, you have the right, the rule allow, to be joined together .  This particular matter was for car which they fix it and then they have to refix it, the same thing.  The second respondent, for instance, he take off the cylinder head to stop the leaking of the oil and the second garage take off the cylinder head again.  Done the same job twice.  This is the reasons the magistrate, he did error in law with Part 6 rule 2 of the Civil Claims Act, join proceedings, your Honour.  We have one, two, three.

Now, the next proceedings is the Trade Practice Act, 1974, section 74(1).  Your Honour, when you take the car to fix it - - -

CALLINAN J:   Mr Valassis, we have read all the papers.  You need not repeat what is in the material.  We have read them.

MR VALASSIS:   Thank you, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   I think we understand - I do not want to cut you short, please do not misunderstand me, but we do understand your point and we have read the papers.

MR VALASSIS:   Thank you.  Thank you very much, your Honour.  Now, if we go to the second book, page 51, you see, you see the second respondent say, “Yes, I did give evidence before the arbitrator”.  I have underlined, your Honour.  This is incorrect that he did give evidence; untruthful evidence, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   Mr Valassis, the point you have to address is why the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing your appeal.  That is the point we are concerned with.

MR VALASSIS:   Thank you, your Honour.  The point is available which I have been write down.  We have been writ already.  Something which is news for the Court is the arbitrator and the evidence we have in here, never let me give evidence.  Also, I have attached two statutory declaration which was on the hearing day which they say - No 11 and No 12 - I never give evidence before they arbitrator.

Now, further to this, your Honour, I did - when I found out, your Honour, Mr Peter Anthony Gannon, which he was the manager of New Rowley Motors, when I knew it, the second respondent working for him, I did subpoena to give evidence.  They are the main - proper people to prove to the court the nature of the case which the magistrate, he refused.

Now, this mean this proceedings, your Honour, definitely was not genuine proceedings and was involving other people behind and make all this mess and this is the reasons which I am here.  To go into the court I am expecting I should have the right to give evidence and never allow me to give evidence.

HAYNE J:   Yes.  Is there any other point you wish to make, Mr Valassis?

MR VALASSIS:   Thank you, your Honour, I think this is the points which I have been - thank you, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   Thank you very much.  The decision of the Court of Appeal in this matter is not attended by doubt.  Special leave will be refused.

AT 1.08 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED