Wreford v Castleyheard Pty Ltd [No 3]

The appeal in Wreford v Castleyheard Pty Ltd [No 3] was heard by the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, comprising Quinlan CJ, Mitchell JA, and Vaughan JA. The appellant, Ms Wreford, sought to appeal the orders of Sanderson M dismissing her claims against the first, second, and third respondents. The respondents were involved in earlier litigation concerning a personal injury claim brought by Ms Wreford in the District Court. The first respondent acted as Ms Wreford's solicitor, the second respondent was her counsel, and the third respondent acted for the defendant driver's solicitors. Ms Wreford alleged reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the decision-maker, failure to accord her procedural fairness, and discretionary error. The appeal was dismissed by the court.

Ms Wreford's grounds of appeal alleged that the master: (1) failed to accord procedural fairness to Ms Wreford, a self-represented litigant; (2) was reasonably suspected of bias against Ms Wreford; (3) erred in exercising the discretion to grant summary judgment by disregarding relevant considerations and taking into account irrelevant considerations; and (4) erred in exercising the discretion to grant summary judgment when it was not reasonably open to do so. The court rejected all grounds of appeal.

Regarding the allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias, the court found that the master's conduct did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the master against Ms Wreford. The court found that many of Ms Wreford's complaints were misconceived and did not establish that the proceedings gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the master.

The court also rejected Ms Wreford's allegation that there was a failure to accord procedural fairness. The court found that the master did what was required to ensure a fair hearing, and that the nature of the hearing did not require the master to inform Ms Wreford of the matters that might usually be raised in respect of a trial. The court found that there was no denial of procedural fairness in the manner asserted by Ms Wreford.

The court further rejected Ms Wreford's allegations of discretionary error. The court found that there was no substance in the complaints of discretionary error by the alleged disregard of relevant considerations or the taking into account of irrelevant considerations.

Finally, the court rejected Ms Wreford's contention that the orders were not reasonably open to the master. The court found that it was reasonably open to the master to strike out the further reamended statement of claim without granting leave to replead and that there was nothing unreasonable or plainly unjust in this aspect of the master's exercise of discretion.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and the parties were to be heard on the costs of the appeal.