Legal Research
Cases
Yates v Integrity Industrial Pty Ltd

Yates v Integrity Industrial Pty Ltd

Case [2020] WADC 127 17 September 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   YATES -v- INTEGRITY INDUSTRIAL PTY LTD [2020] WADC 127
CORAM:   PRIOR DCJ
HEARD:   20 JULY 2020
DELIVERED          :   17 SEPTEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1605 of 2016
BETWEEN:   SAMANTHA AMY YATES
Plaintiff
AND
INTEGRITY INDUSTRIAL PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice - Inactive cases list - Case dismissed pursuant to r 44G District Court Rules 2005 (WA) - Application to set aside dismissal - Consideration of s 440D and s 500(2) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) - Exceptional circumstances

Legislation:

Acts Interpretion Act 101 (Cth), s 15AA
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 435A, s 440D, s 500(2)
District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 37, r 38, r 44, r 44A, r 44D, r 44F, r 44G

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr J N D'Angelo
Defendant	:	Mr J Campbell

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Earnshaw & Associates
Defendant	:	DLA Piper Australia - Perth

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

Aquila Resources Ltd v Pasminco Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2002] WASC 53; (2002) 168 FLR 85
ATS v FS Kotai Pty Ltd, CJ Broun Pty Ltd, Elizabeth Berkley Wysocki and Carol Elizabeth McGrath t/as Glen Forrest Medical Centre [2020] WADC 115
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (No 3) [2011] FCA 348
Brian Rochford Ltd (Administrator Appointed) v Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of NSW (1998) 47 NSWLR 47
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v The Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Crane v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 31
Foxcroft v Ink Group Pty Ltd (1994) 15 ACSR 203
Gibbs v Royalblue Securities Pty Ltd [2017] WADC 80
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Mead Corporation v Carbonless Papers (Australia) Pty Ltd [2002] WASC 268
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil [2000] HCA 61; (2000) 205 CLR 254
Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98
Osborne Park Commercial Pty Ltd v Miloradovic [2019] WASCA 17
Rodgers v Radly [2000] VSC 570
Rowe v Stoltze [2013] WASCA 92; (2013) 45 WAR 116
Sovereign Grange Pty Ltd v AV Truck Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2017] WASCA 142
Stewart v Hames [2019] WASCA 127
Tame v The State of New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; (2002) 211 CLR 317
Taouk v Assure (NSW) Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 224
The Owners of One Brighton Strata Plan 519488 v Pindan Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] WADC 77
The Owners of SP13443, 129 ‑ 133 Eighth Avenue, Maylands v The Owners of 135 Eighth Avenue Maylands (Survey Strata Plan 44698) [2015] WADC 133
Yates v Integrity Industrial Pty Ltd [2018] WADC 86

PRIOR DCJ:

This is an appeal brought by Samantha Amy Yates (the plaintiff), against the decision of a registrar of the District Court dismissing her application to have her case against Integrity Industrial Pty Ltd (the defendant), which had…

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 Yates v Integrity Industrial Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Yates v Integrity Industrial Pty Ltd [2020] WADC 127
Case: [2020] WADC 127
Decision Date: 17 SEPTEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application by the plaintiff, Yates, to set aside the dismissal of his case against the defendant, Integrity Industrial Pty Ltd. The original case was dismissed by the District Court of Western Australia under rule 44G of the District Court Rules 2005 (WA). The plaintiff sought to reinstate his proceedings, arguing that there were exceptional circumstances warranting the setting aside of the dismissal. The court had to determine whether the dismissal should be set aside in light of the relevant statutory provisions and court rules.

The central legal issue was whether the District Court had the authority to set aside the dismissal of an inactive case under rule 44G, considering the provisions of sections 440D and 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The plaintiff argued that the court should exercise its discretion under these sections to set aside the dismissal due to exceptional circumstances. The defendant contended that the dismissal should stand as the court lacked the requisite authority to set aside the dismissal under the circumstances presented.

The court held that rule 44G of the District Court Rules 2005 (WA) provided a clear mechanism for the dismissal of inactive cases, and the statutory provisions did not confer additional authority to set aside such dismissals. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances that would warrant the exercise of discretion under sections 440D and 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Consequently, the application to set aside the dismissal was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the established rules for managing inactive cases and the limited circumstances in which a dismissal could be set aside.

The final order of the court was that the application to set aside the dismissal of the plaintiff's case against the defendant was dismissed. The court declined to exercise its discretion under sections 440D and 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's case as per rule 44G of the District Court Rules 2005 (WA). The court also noted that no costs order was made in relation to the application.

Orders