Williams v Harrison - [2021] NSWSC 1488

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v Harrison [2021] NSWSC 1488
Hearing dates: 29 August 2021
Date of orders: 18 November 2021
Decision date: 18 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1)   The appeal is allowed.
(2)   The decision of the Toronto Local Court on 14 January 2021 striking out the plaintiff’s claim is quashed.
(3)   The defendant’s notice of motion for summary dismissal is remitted to the Toronto Local Court to be dealt with according to law.
(4) No order as to costs.

Catchwords:
CIVIL LAW - appeal from Local Court - plaintiff self-represented - documents lacking legal finesse - where plaintiff did not appear - where statement of claim struck out - procedural fairness - confusion - woefully inadequate record - conflict as to whether matter dealt with in court or chambers - the plaintiff’s right to be heard - failure to give reasons - appeal allowed and matter remitted to the Local Court

Legislation Cited:
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 14
Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) ss 39, 40
Local Court Rules 2009 (NSW) r 4.4
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 13.4, 13.6, 14.28

Cases Cited:
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234
McDonald v Grech; Bank of Western Australia Ltd v McDonald [2012] NSWSC 717
Wardley Australia v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; [1992] HCA 55

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Karl Williams (Plaintiff)
Malcom John Harrison (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Maclean Glaser Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/00158454 and 2021/00042926
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

By summons filed on 15 February 2021, Karl Williams (the plaintiff) appeals, or if and where necessary seeks leave to appeal, against a decision made by the Toronto Local Court on 14 January 2021. The decision was to strike out the plaintiff’s statement of claim and dismiss civil proceedings he brought against Malcom Harrison (the defendant). The defendant is a property valuer who was retained by the plaintiff in Family Court proceedings that were resolved some years ago.
The conduct giving rise to the substantive proceedings in the Local Court arose from the defendant (on the plaintiff’s case) changing his opinion as to the value of matrimonial property in the course of the Family Court Proceedings. Initially, the defendant provided a valuation of the relevant real estate and the plaintiff relied on the opinion in alleging that the sale of the estate breached two property orders. In evidence, the defendant (again, on the plaintiff’s case) changed his position. It appears that the following exchange in cross-examination, taken from the Family Court transcript (reformatted by the writer in an attempt to achieve clarity), lies at the heart of the plaintiff’s suit:

“Q: Against that background – I’m sorry. I need you to assume one more thing. I need you to assume there is in force a court order requiring the sale of this property – the subject property - and that - sorry, your Honour – and that the wording of…

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 Williams v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Williams v Harrison [2021] NSWSC 1488
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1488
Decision Date: 18 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Williams v Harrison involved the plaintiff, Williams, who appeared self-represented against Harrison, the defendant. The dispute originated in the Local Court, where Williams sought compensation for damages caused by a motor vehicle accident. The case was notable for Williams's lack of legal representation and the apparent deficiencies in the documents submitted, which were described as lacking legal finesse. The plaintiff's failure to appear at the scheduled hearing resulted in the Local Court striking out the statement of claim, raising significant issues regarding procedural fairness and the plaintiff's right to be heard.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the Local Court properly exercised its procedural powers in striking out the statement of claim and whether the plaintiff's procedural fairness rights were violated. The appeal hinged on whether the Local Court had adequately considered the plaintiff's right to be heard, given the absence of proper reasons for the decision and the confusion surrounding whether the matter was dealt with in court or in chambers. Additionally, there was a conflict in the records regarding the extent to which the Local Court had addressed the plaintiff's case, which further complicated the assessment of procedural fairness.

The court found that the Local Court had not adequately exercised its procedural powers, particularly in failing to provide reasons for striking out the statement of claim. The absence of clear reasons and the confusion surrounding the procedural handling of the matter contributed to a breach of the plaintiff's procedural fairness rights. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Local Court for reconsideration, ensuring that the plaintiff's right to be heard was properly respected.

Orders