Woodward v Loadman

Case [2007] NTSC 60

Woodward & Anor v Loadman & Anor [2007] NTSC 60

PARTIES:WOODWARD, Lucinda

AND

BRADDY, Vicki

v

LOADMAN, David

AND

MINDILBEACH SUNSET MARKETS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:SC 45 of 2007 (20711094)

LA 6 of 2007 (20625162)

DELIVERED:  9 November 2007

HEARING DATES:  7 & 17 September 2007

JUDGMENT OF:  OLSSON AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal from local court and application for judicial review – originating application by appellants in local court summarily dismissed by Magistrate on basis that cause of action frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process of the Court and also because further and better particulars of claim supplied did not comply with the Local Court Rules – Magistrate indicated his conclusion at outset of proceedings, made order on basis not sought by the defendant and without affording appellants an opportunity of being heard – whether order made a final or interlocutory order – whether appeal brought as of right – whether appeal out of time and incompetent by reasons of provisions of s 19(30) of the Local Court Act – whether claims brought by appellants enlivened jurisdiction of Local Court – whether appellants denied procedural fairness – whether Magistrate fulfilled his duty to appellants as self-represented litigants – principles on which relief in the nature of certiorari granted – whether circumstances justify relief of that nature – appeal dismissed as incompetent – order quashing impugned order and proceedings remitted back to Local Court for rehearing before another Magistrate

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:W Piper

Plaintiff:D Alderman

Respondent / 1st Defendant:         W Priestley

Respondent / 2nd Defendant:        G Clift

Solicitors:

Appellant:Pipers

Plaintiff:Pipers

Respondent / 1st Defendant:         Solicitor for the Northern Territory

Respondent / 2nd Defendant:        De Silva Hebron

Judgment category classification:    B

Judgment ID Number:  Ols0707

Number of pages:  42

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Woodward & Anor v Loadman & Anor [2007] NTSC 60

No. SC 45 of 2007 (20711094) & LA 6 of 2007 (20625162)

BETWEEN:

LUCINDA WOODWARD

1st Plaintiff

AND

VICKI BRADDY

2nd Plaintiff

AND:

DAVID LOADMAN

1st Respondent

AND

MINDILBEACH SUNSET MARKETS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED

2nd Respondent

CORAM:     OLSSON AJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 9 November 2007)

Olsson AJ:

Introduction

  1. I have two separate proceedings before me for consideration.

  2. First, in matter LA 6 of 2007, the appellants seek to prosecute an appeal as of right pursuant to s 19 of the Local Court Act. They complain that a stipendiary magistrate inappropriately made a summary order on 21 February 2007 that an originating application filed by them on 3 October 2006 be struck out with costs.

  3. The striking out order was expressed to be on the grounds that the claim did not comply with Local Court Rule 28.01, did not disclose a cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, was an abuse of the process of Court and that, in any event, there had been…

Continue reading Woodward v Loadman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woodward v Loadman [2007] NTSC 60
Case
[2007] NTSC 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Woodward v Loadman, the appellants sought to appeal a decision of the Local Court in which the Magistrate dismissed their originating application on the basis that the cause of action was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court. The appellants further contended that the Magistrate's order was not sought by the defendant, and that they were not afforded an opportunity to be heard. The appellants also brought an application for judicial review, contending that the Magistrate's order was made without procedural fairness, and that they were denied their right to be heard.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appeal was brought as of right, whether it was out of time and incompetent, whether the claims brought by the appellants enlivened the jurisdiction of the Local Court, whether the appellants were denied procedural fairness, and whether the Magistrate fulfilled his duty to the appellants as self-represented litigants. The court found that the appeal was not brought as of right, and that it was out of time and incompetent. The court further found that the appellants were denied procedural fairness, and that the Magistrate had not fulfilled his duty to them as self-represented litigants.

The court held that the appeal was incompetent because the appellants had not sought legal advice until after the time constraints imposed by s 19 of the Local Court Act had expired. The court further held that the appellants had been denied procedural fairness because they were not given an opportunity to be heard, and because the Magistrate had effectively prejudged the matter. The court found that the Magistrate's conduct had resulted in a serious miscarriage of the proceedings in the Local Court, and that the appellants were not accorded due process.

The court granted relief in the nature of certiorari, quashed the impugned order, and remitted the proceedings back to the Local Court for rehearing before another Magistrate. The court found that the circumstances justified relief of that nature, and that the appellants had made out a case for judicial review. The appeal was dismissed, and the proceedings were remitted back to the Local Court for rehearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

There is no doubt that the appellants should have been afforded a proper opportunity of placing the pleadings and particulars in order and given a proper explanation as to what was required in that regard, but they were effectively denied any possibility of doing so.Conclusion as to merits of appeal It follows that, if the purported appeal had been competent, I would unhesitatingly have allowed it, set aside the impugned orders and remitted the proceedings back to the Local Court, for reconsideration by another magistrate. As matters stand, I have no option but to dismiss the appeal on the basis that it does not enliven the jurisdiction conferred by s 19(1) of the Local Court Act.Given the incompetency of the appeal, have the appellants made out a case for judicial review? In the concluding stages of the hearing before me I gave the appellants leave to file an affirmation as to when the appellants first sought legal advice, following the making of the impugned orders. This was by way of supplementation to an affirmation made by Mr Piper, which stated that the appellants first contacted him seeking legal advice on 15 March 2007. He was first able to see Ms Woodward on 19 March 2007, at which time she did not possess a copy of the relevant transcript of proceedings and, in its absence, had no clear recollection of precisely how the learned Magistrate had expressed himself. Mr Piper says that he attended the Local Court on 20 March 2007 and listened to the audiotape of the proceedings on 21 February 2007 and thereafter filed the notice of appeal on 21 March 2007. Having been advised by letter dated 3 April 2007 written to him by the solicitors for the MBSMA that it would be contending that the appeal was incompetent, Mr Piper sought counsel’s advice as to the situation, as a consequence of which the originating motion seeking judicial review was filed. The affirmation of Ms Woodward renders it clear that, immediately following the making of the impugned orders, the appellants somewhat desperately sought to secure legal advice as to their position. Inter alia, they sought assistance from an officer of the Department of Business and Infrastructure to identify and procure suitable legal representation. They were unable to secure such representation until Ms Woodard first saw Mr Piper. I infer that, prior to seeing him, they were unaware of the detailed provisions of s 19 of the Local Court Act and, in particular, the time constraints imposed by it. I note that, in a separate affirmation made by her, the second appellant, Ms Braddy, states that she was booked to go overseas to Bali from 23 February 2007 and did not obtain legal advice in relation to the decision of the learned Magistrate until she went, with Ms Woodward, to see Mr Piper on 21 March 2007. Leaving aside other relevant considerations, it must be said that the narrative events, as I have recorded them, compellingly indicate that the conduct of the learned Magistrate effectively resulted in a serious miscarriage of the proceedings in the Local Court. The appellants were not accorded due process, they were not rendered that assistance that unrepresented litigants are entitled to expect, the matter was dealt with, at the instance of the learned Magistrate, on a basis that had not even been propounded on behalf of the MBSMA and it is beyond question that the learned Magistrate had effectively prejudged the matter prior to either party having an opportunity of being heard.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.