Legal Research
Cases
WWW v DET

WWW v DET

Case [2024] WADC 84 4 October 2024

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WWW -v- DET [2024] WADC 84
CORAM:   GETHING DCJ
HEARD:   1 AUGUST 2024
DELIVERED          :   4 OCTOBER 2024
FILE NO/S:   APP 44 of 2023
BETWEEN:   WWW
Appellant
AND
DET
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE C CRAWFORD
File Number            :   MC/CIV/PER/RO/513/2021

Catchwords:

Appeal from the Magistrates Court - Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA) - Whether the Appellant was denied procedural fairness by the Magistrate declining to exclude the Respondent's mother from the public gallery - Whether the Appellant was denied procedural fairness by the manner in which his cross‑examination was controlled and limited - Whether the Appellant was denied procedural fairness by the manner in which his evidence‑in‑chief was controlled and limited - Whether the Appellant was denied procedural fairness as a litigant in person - Whether the Appellant was denied procedural fairness by the Magistrate changing the case he had to meet

Evidence - Options open to the court when there has been non‑compliance with the rule in Browne v Dunn

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 13, s 16
Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA), s 10E, s 44A, s 44C, s 44D, s 44F, s 68

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms J S Yeap
Respondent	:	Ms T J Wall

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	JSY Legal
Respondent	:	Bannerman Solicitors

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

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40; (2000) 203 CLR 172
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt [2019] HCA 18
Avetmiss Easy Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Qualifications Authority [2014] FCA 314
Binningup Nominees Pty Ltd v Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 130
Blenkinsop v Holland [2018] WADC 146
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Bulstrode v Trimble [1970] VR 840
Burke v Corruption and Crime Commission [2012] WASCA 49
Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29; (2021) 273 CLR 289
Children's Guardian v CF1 [2020] NSWSC 1673
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1074; (1994) 49 FCR 576
Crosthwaite v Corporation of the City of Elizabeth (1989) 51 SASR 105
Davie v Manuel [2024] WASCA 21
Defendi v Szigligeti [2019] WASCA 115
Fried v National Australia Bank Limited (2000) 175 ALR 194
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Ho v Lonergan [2013] WASCA 20
Hofer v The Queen [2021] HCA 36
Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; (2011) 243 CLR 506
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
JC v TH [2024] WADC 58
Jones v Darkan Hotel [2014] WASCA 133
Kelly v Fiander [2024] WASC 275
Keremestevski v Shaun McLeod as executor of the estate of Mark Adrian McLeod [2024] WASCA 12
Lets Go Adventures Pty Ltd v Barrett [2017] NSWCA 243
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559
MacPherson v The…

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 WWW v DET

Details

AGLC: WWW v DET [2024] WADC 84
Case: [2024] WADC 84
Decision Date: 4 OCTOBER 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, WWW, appealed a decision made by the Magistrates Court of Western Australia which imposed a restraining order on him under the Restraining Orders Act 1997. WWW contended that the magistrate had failed to provide procedural fairness in several ways. Firstly, WWW claimed that he was denied procedural fairness when the magistrate refused to exclude the respondent’s mother from the public gallery. Secondly, WWW argued that the manner in which his cross-examination was controlled and limited by the magistrate was unfair. Thirdly, WWW submitted that the magistrate’s control and limitation of his evidence-in-chief also denied him procedural fairness. Fourthly, WWW maintained that his status as a litigant in person meant that he was denied procedural fairness. Finally, WWW argued that the magistrate’s alteration of the case he had to meet was unfair.

The court considered whether the magistrate’s refusal to exclude the respondent’s mother from the public gallery denied WWW procedural fairness. The court held that the magistrate did not err in declining to exclude the respondent’s mother from the public gallery. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent’s mother was influencing or intimidating WWW. The court also examined whether the magistrate’s control of WWW’s cross-examination and evidence-in-chief was fair. The court found that the magistrate’s control was reasonable and did not deny WWW procedural fairness. The court further considered whether WWW’s status as a litigant in person meant that he was denied procedural fairness. The court held that WWW’s status as a litigant in person did not entitle him to special treatment. Finally, the court examined whether the magistrate’s alteration of the case he had to meet was unfair. The court held that the magistrate’s alteration was not unfair as it was within the magistrate’s discretion.

The court concluded that the magistrate did not deny WWW procedural fairness. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Magistrates Court.

Orders