Arezou Sadeghpour, the respondent, is the registered proprietor of Units 4 and 5, 18 Rudloc Road, Morley (Property). In June 2018 Ms Sadghpour agreed to lease the Property to Bianchini & Associates Pty Ltd, with the lessee's obligations being guaranteed by Fabrizio Pio Bianchini. The agreement to lease was subject to the lessee paying a security bond which had to be paid before the lessee could take possession of the Property. It was not paid, so in September 2018 Ms Sadeghpour gave notice terminating the lease.
At some point after the agreement to lease was signed someone left some chattels on the Property. They comprise plant and equipment for business that was going to manufacture bathroom products from marble and granite, as well as raw materials and stock for that business. In addition, there is also a 1997 white Audi motor vehicle (together, the Chattels).[1]
[1] The Chattels are particularised at pars 5 and 6 of the Statement of General Procedure Claim at Matter Book (MB) 577.
Mr Williams, the appellant, claimed the right to remove the Chattels.…
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 Sadeghpour
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams v Sadeghpour [2021] WADC 111
Case
[2021] WADC 111
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Williams v Sadeghpour [2021] WADC 111 was brought by Brent Gary Williams, the appellant, against Arezou Sadeghpour, the respondent. The appeal was from a decision of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, which dismissed both the appellant's claim and the respondent's counterclaim. The sole issue in the appeal was whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness by the decision of the Magistrate to refuse to adjourn the trial of the claim. The District Court found that he was, and allowed the appeal. The claim and counterclaim were remitted to the Magistrates Court to be retried before a different magistrate. The history of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court is complex. The appellant claimed the right to remove certain chattels from the respondent's property. The respondent took the position that if the appellant could satisfy her that he was in fact the owner of the chattels, and would pay for the costs of storing them, he could remove them. This issue was not able to be resolved informally, so in December 2019 the appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent in the Magistrates Court. The respondent maintained her position in the defence and counterclaim she filed in the Magistrates Court proceedings. Following a trial on 23 and 24 February 2021, on 26 February 2021 Magistrate Ward dismissed both the claim and counterclaim. This followed late filing by the respondent of her witness statements and trial documents. Because of the late filings, the appellant had applied to adjourn the trial. The Magistrate refused to do so. The District Court found that the appellant had been denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case, which was an error of law. The appropriate orders were: (1) the appeal be allowed; (2) the orders of the Magistrates Court on 26 February 2021 dismissing the claim and counterclaim be set aside; and (3) the claim and counterclaim be remitted to the Magistrates Court for hearing by a different magistrate.