Westonia Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Geier - [2018] WASC 399

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   WESTONIA EARTHMOVING PTY LTD -v- GEIER [2018] WASC 399
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   21 NOVEMBER 2018
DELIVERED          :   20 DECEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2052 of 2018
BETWEEN:   WESTONIA EARTHMOVING PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
WALTER HERBERT GEIER
First Defendant
CHRISTINE ETHEL GEIER
Second Defendant
ASHLEY JAMES GEIER
Third Defendant
STACEY ANN GEIER
Fourth Defendant
TANIA MICHELLE GEIER
Fifth Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Summary judgment - Judgment in District Court in excess of jurisdiction - Whether additional evidence should be admitted - Leave to reopen summary judgment application

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Leave to reopen summary judgment application granted
Leave to adduce further evidence granted
Application for summary judgment dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr T O Coyle
First Defendant	:	Mr S Vandongen SC & Mr J E Scovell
Second Defendant	:	Mr S Vandongen SC & Mr J E Scovell
Third Defendant	:	Mr S Vandongen SC & Mr J E Scovell
Fourth Defendant	:	Mr S Vandongen SC & Mr J E Scovell
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Cooper Legal
First Defendant	:	Salerno Law
Second Defendant	:	Salerno Law
Third Defendant	:	Salerno Law
Fourth Defendant	:	Salerno Law
Fifth Defendant	:	No appearance

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

Simonsen v Legge [2010] WASCA 238
TLJ v Lai [2017] WADC 119
TLJ v Lai [2018] WASCA 201

MASTER SANDERSON:

This matter has an unfortunate procedural history. It is necessary to recount some of that history before even detailing the nature of this application. The matter began on 1 March 2017 in the District Court of Western Australia. The liquidator of the plaintiff sought to recover money allegedly owing from the defendants' first and second partnership with the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed the sum of $898,215. That is the figure specified in the amended statement of claim which was filed 14 June 2017.[1]
[1] Submissions filed 29 October 2018 on behalf of first to fourth defendants at pars 1 ‑ 2.
On 25 August 2017 in a hearing of an application for summary judgment in the District Court before Registrar Kingsley the first to fourth defendants inclusive consented to part of the sum claimed by the plaintiff (being $437,205). Following the hearing judgment was given for the full amount of the claim but not entered. On 7 September 2017 the District Court raised the issue of jurisdiction by way of a letter to the parties. The letter explained that the judgment sum exceeded the jurisdiction of the District Court. Pursuant to an order of her Honour Judge Wager made 29 March 2018 the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court.[2]
[2] Submissions filed 29 October 2018 on behalf of first to fourth defendants at pars 3 ‑ 5.
The plaintiff's solicitors, not unreasonably, took the view that it was simply a matter of drawing the court's attention to the decision of Registrar Kingsley and then…

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 Westonia Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Geier 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: [2018] WASC 399
Decision Date: 20 DECEMBER 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Westonia Earthmoving Pty Ltd v Geier involved the plaintiff, Westonia Earthmoving, seeking summary judgment against the defendant, Geier, in a District Court in Australia. The nature of the dispute was centred around contractual obligations and payments for services rendered by Westonia Earthmoving. The District Court had entered judgment in excess of its jurisdiction, leading Westonia Earthmoving to seek an appeal on the grounds that the court should have admitted additional evidence and should have been granted leave to reopen its summary judgment application.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court had erred in not admitting additional evidence and in refusing to grant leave to reopen the summary judgment application. The primary concern was whether the court had acted within its jurisdiction and whether procedural fairness had been upheld by considering all relevant evidence before making its decision.

In its reasoning, the court found that the District Court had indeed erred in not considering additional evidence that was pertinent to the case. The court held that the trial judge should have admitted the evidence as it was relevant and material to the issues at hand. Furthermore, the court determined that the District Court should have been granted leave to reopen the summary judgment application to ensure that all relevant evidence was considered. This was crucial to upholding the principles of procedural fairness and ensuring that the court had made its decision based on a complete set of facts.

The court ordered that the judgment of the District Court be set aside and that the case be remitted back for reconsideration, with the additional evidence being admitted and the summary judgment application being reopened. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for courts to consider all relevant evidence before making a final determination.

Orders