Von ADAMETZ v Johansen - [2012] WADC 178

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: VON ADAMETZ -v- JOHANSEN [2012] WADC 178

CORAM: SCOTT DCJ

HEARD: 7 DECEMBER 2012

DELIVERED : 20 DECEMBER 2012

FILE NO/S: APP 42 of 2012

BETWEEN: KLAUS G GRAEF VON ADAMETZ
Appellant
AND
ANTONY JOHANSEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No               :  APP 42 of 2012
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE BOON
File No  :CTC 20219 of 2011

Catchwords:

Whether refusal to allow appellant to call further witnesses a denial of natural justice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 s 32, s 40

Result:

Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: In person

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Respondent: Not applicable

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

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40
Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 32
Rajski v Scitec Corp Pty Ltd [1986] NSWCA 1
Re; Burton; Ex parte Lowe [2003] WASCA 306
Shenton v Touchstone Farms Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 261

SCOTT DCJ: This is an appeal by the appellant against the judgment of her Honour Magistrate Boon on 11 June 2012 in which her Honour dismissed the appellant's claim which was instituted in the minor cases division of the Magistrates Court in Perth.
The right of appeal is contained in s 32 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (Act). Relevantly that section provides as follows:
(1)Except as provided by this section, no appeal lies against —
…
(b)the judgment of the Court in a minor case.
(2)If a party to a minor case is dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court in the case then —
(a)if the Court was constituted by a magistrate — an appeal lies against the judgment under Part 7 and, subject to subsection (3), Part 7 applies to the appeal; or
…
(3)Despite Part 7 an appeal against a judgment in a minor case may only be made on the grounds —
…
(b)that in dealing with the minor case there was a denial of natural justice; or
…
Part 7 of the Act provides for an appeal from the Magistrates Court to this court and is relevantly in the following terms:
…
(2)An appeal against the judgment of the Magistrates Court in a case that is a minor case is subject to section 32.
…
(4)The District Court must decide the appeal on —
(a)the material and evidence that were before the Magistrates Court; and
(b)any other evidence that it gives leave to be admitted.
(5)Leave may only be given under subsection (4)(b) in exceptional circumstances.
Hence an appeal from the judgment of a magistrate in the Magistrates Court is by way of rehearing and it is therefore necessary for an appellant to demonstrate error in the court below (Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40 [23]).

Grounds of appeal

In this case 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 Von ADAMETZ v Johansen

Details

AGLC: Von ADAMETZ v Johansen [2012] WADC 178
Case: [2012] WADC 178
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Von Adametz v Johansen, the appellant sought to challenge a decision made by the respondent regarding a property dispute. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant argued that the refusal to allow them to call further witnesses during the proceedings amounted to a denial of natural justice. The legal issues before the court involved whether the decision-maker had exercised their discretion appropriately and whether the appellant had been afforded a fair opportunity to present their case.
The court considered whether the refusal to allow further witnesses constituted a breach of natural justice. The court noted that the principles of natural justice require that a person affected by a decision has the opportunity to put forward their case fully and fairly. However, the court also recognised that the exercise of discretion in such matters is not absolute and must be considered within the specific context of the case. The court determined that the decision-maker had not acted outside the bounds of their discretion and that the refusal to allow further witnesses did not result in a denial of natural justice. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to make the decision, and the appellant had not demonstrated that the exclusion of further witnesses would have altered the outcome.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the denial of natural justice must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The court emphasised that the right to call witnesses is not absolute and must be balanced against other considerations, such as the efficiency and fairness of the proceedings. In this instance, the court found that the refusal to allow further witnesses did not prejudice the appellant's case and did not result in an unfair outcome. The decision was therefore upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal.

Orders