Wreford v Moray & Agnew - [2025] WASC 280

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   WREFORD -v- MORAY & AGNEW [2025] WASC 280
CORAM:   MUSIKANTH J
HEARD:   27 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED          :   4 JULY 2025
PUBLISHED           :   11 JULY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2114 of 2021
BETWEEN:   JOVANNA WREFORD
Applicant
AND
MORAY & AGNEW
Respondent

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Where party seeks stay on the enforcement of certificate of taxation - Whether party denied procedural fairness - Whether Registrar obliged to conduct provisional assessment under CPD 4.7.2 - Whether Registrar empowered to assess interest on judgment sum when issuing a property (seizure and sale) order - Whether interest is calculated from date of judgment or date of certificate of taxation

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA) - Whether special circumstances for suspension order under s 15 - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)

Result:

Dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Mr S Popperwell

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	In Person
Respondent	:	Popperwell & Co

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

Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASCA 307; (2003) 28 WAR 308
Easy Stay Mining Accommodation Pty Limited v Faigen [2017] WASC 266
Ladang Jalong (Australia) Pty Ltd v Callander [2005] WASCA 203
Monaco v Arnedo Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 522
Mossensons (a firm) v Coastline Associates (unreported, WASC, Library No 970661, 2 December 1997)
Pryles & Defteros (a firm) v Green [199] WASC 34
Rambal v The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Limited [2015] WASCA 197
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 155
Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WASCA 113
Tey v Optima Financial Group Pty Ltd [2013] WASC 384
Wreford v Casterleyheard Pty Ltd [2022] WASC 164
Wreford v Castleyheard Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 91
Wreford v Castleyheard Pty Ltd [No 3] [2024] WASCA 2
Wreford v Lyle [2018] WADC 173

MUSIKANTH J:

(These reasons were delivered orally on 4 July 2025 and have been edited from the transcript to include headings, references and correct matters of grammar and expression.)

Introduction

Before me is an application by the applicant, Jovanna Wreford, seeking various forms of relief which in substance boil down to a proposed stay of enforcement of:
(a)a certificate of taxation dated 14 March 2025 in the sum of $19,063.76, issued in matter CACV 56 of 2022 in favour of the third defendant (CACV certificate);
(b)a certificate of taxation dated 14 March 2025 in the sum of $15,347, issued in matter CIV 2114 of 2021 in favour of the third defendant (CIV certificate); and
(c)a property (seizure and sale) order dated 9 May 2025 (PSSO), made under Part 4 Division 6 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2024 (WA), enforcing the CIV certificate being a judgment of this court pursuant to O 66 r 57 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (Rules

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 Wreford v Moray & Agnew 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: [2025] WASC 280
Decision Date: 11 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wreford v Moray & Agnew was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The matter concerned a dispute over the enforcement of a certificate of taxation, where the defendant sought a stay pending determination of an appeal. The plaintiff, Wreford, had obtained a judgment against the defendant, Moray & Agnew, and sought to enforce it through the seizure and sale of property. The defendants argued that the enforcement process did not comply with procedural fairness and questioned the Registrar's obligations and powers under the Civil Procedure Rules and the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA).

The court was required to address several legal issues, including whether the Registrar was obliged to conduct a provisional assessment under rule 4.7.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, whether the Registrar had the power to assess interest on the judgment sum when issuing a property seizure and sale order, and when interest on the judgment sum began to accrue. The court also had to consider whether the Registrar had the power to assess interest on the judgment sum when issuing a property seizure and sale order, and whether there were special circumstances for a suspension order under section 15 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA).

The court found that the Registrar was not obliged to conduct a provisional assessment under rule 4.7.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as this was not a requirement of procedural fairness in the circumstances. The court further held that the Registrar did not have the power to assess interest on the judgment sum when issuing a property seizure and sale order, and that interest on the judgment sum began to accrue from the date of the judgment, not from the date of the certificate of taxation. The court found that there were no special circumstances to justify a suspension order under section 15 of the Civil Judgments Enforcement Act 2004 (WA).

The court ultimately denied the application for a stay of enforcement of the certificate of taxation. The defendants were not denied procedural fairness, and the Registrar's actions did not breach any statutory or procedural requirements. The court held that the interest on the judgment sum should be calculated from the date of the judgment, and that the Registrar did not have the power to assess interest when issuing a property seizure and sale order. The stay application was dismissed, and the enforcement of the certificate of taxation was allowed to proceed.

Orders