Yates v CRAYBROOKE Nominees Pty Ltd - [2014] WADC 28

YATES -v- CRAYBROOKE NOMINEES PTY LTD [2014] WADC 28

Last Update: 11/03/2014

YATES -v- CRAYBROOKE NOMINEES PTY LTD [2014] WADC 28
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 28
Case No:	BUS APP:1/2012, BUS APP:2/2012	Heard:	25 JANUARY 2013
Coram:	DEANE DCJ	Delivered:	07/03/2014
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	35	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Both appeals dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	GAVIN GEOFFREY YATES CRAYBROOKE NOMINEES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Appeal against entry of default judgment against appellant in Magistrates Court Whether magistrate erred in ordering that appellant pay a sum of money into court as a condition in setting aside the default judgment Whether cause of action in indorsement of writ same as in statement of claim Whether appellant denied procedural fairness in hearing in Magistrates Court Whether when appellant failed to meet conditions attaching to setting aside of default judgment it then stood against the appellant Whether judgment then merged so as to prevent appellant arguing an application to strike out the respondent's statement of claim before another magistrate
Legislation:	Magistrates Court Act 2004 Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Case References:	Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226 Batiste v Gilmar-Latham [2001] NSWCA 392 Carrier Air Conditioning Pty Ltd v Thommesen & Ors [2005] WADC 195 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Cann [2012] WADC 115 Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Detata [2012] WASCA 214 Leslie v GE Commercial Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASCA 28 M R & R C Smith Pty Ltd t/as Ultra Tune (Osborne Park) v Wyatt [No 2] [2012] WASCA 110 Re Michelides; Ex parte Chin [2008] WASC 256 Re Monger; Ex parte Cross [2004] WASCA 176 Scaffidi v Montevento Holdings Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 146 Zurich Australian Insurance Limited v Metal Minerals Insurance Pte Ltd [2007] WASC 62

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : YATES -v- CRAYBROOKE NOMINEES PTY LTD [2014] WADC 28 CORAM : DEANE DCJ HEARD : 25 JANUARY 2013 DELIVERED : 7 MARCH 2014 FILE NO/S : BUS APP 1 of 2012

BUS APP 2 of 2012

BETWEEN : GAVIN GEOFFREY YATES

Appellant

AND

CRAYBROOKE NOMINEES PTY LTD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Appeal against entry of default judgment against appellant in Magistrates Court - Whether magistrate erred in ordering that appellant pay a sum of money into court as a condition in setting aside the default judgment - Whether cause of action in indorsement of writ same as in statement of claim - Whether appellant denied procedural fairness in hearing in Magistrates Court - Whether when appellant failed to meet conditions attaching to setting aside of default judgment it then stood against the appellant - Whether judgment then merged so as to prevent appellant arguing an application to strike out the respondent's statement of claim before another magistrate

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Both appeals dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R…

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 Yates v CRAYBROOKE Nominees Pty Ltd 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: [2014] WADC 28
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought against the entry of a default judgment against the appellant in the Magistrates Court, which was subsequently affirmed in the County Court. The appellant, Yates, sought to have the default judgment set aside on the grounds that it was entered without proper notice and due to an error in the writ of summons. The respondent, CRAYBROOKE Nominees Pty Ltd, opposed the application and argued that the appellant was in default and that the judgment should stand. The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate erred in ordering the appellant to pay a sum of money into court as a condition for setting aside the default judgment, whether the cause of action in the indorsement of the writ was the same as that in the statement of claim, whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness in the hearing in the Magistrates Court, and whether the judgment had merged to prevent the appellant arguing an application to strike out the respondent's statement of claim before another magistrate.

The court found that the magistrate did not err in ordering the appellant to pay a sum of money into court as a condition for setting aside the default judgment. The court also found that the cause of action in the indorsement of the writ was the same as that in the statement of claim, and that the appellant was not denied procedural fairness in the hearing in the Magistrates Court. The court held that the judgment had not merged, and that the appellant could still argue an application to strike out the respondent's statement of claim before another magistrate. The court found that the appellant had failed to meet the conditions attaching to the setting aside of the default judgment, and that the judgment then stood against the appellant.

Both appeals were dismissed. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated any error in the proceedings that would warrant the setting aside of the default judgment. The court also found that the respondent was entitled to enforce the judgment against the appellant, and that the appellant had no grounds to challenge the judgment. The court held that the appellant had failed to meet the conditions for setting aside the default judgment, and that the judgment had become final and binding on the parties. The court found that the appellant had no grounds to appeal the decision of the County Court, and that the appeals should be dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Both appeals 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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.