JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: YUZHENG -v- BOWDITCH [2018] WADC 50
CORAM: JUDGE GILLAN
HEARD: 7 MARCH 2018
DELIVERED : 24 APRIL 2018
FILE NO/S: APP 92 of 2017
BETWEEN: RONG YUZHENG
Appellant
AND
HAYDEN BOWDITCH
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MAGISTRATE WALTON
File Number : PE MINOR 14508 of 2016
Catchwords:
Appeal - Magistrates Court - Minor case claim - Unrepresented parties - Limited ground of appeal - Whether there was a denial of natural justice - Assertion of bias - Tort of nuisance
Legislation:
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | In person |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | Not applicable |
| Respondent | : | Not applicable |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 110
De Alwis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 42
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Marsh v Baxter [2014] WASC 187; (2014) 46 WAR 377
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Afffairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2010] WADC 170
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
Re Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33 [41]; (1979) 36 FLR 482
Rodriguez v Telstra Corp Ltd [2002] FCA 30
Waters v Williams [2013] WADC 169
Wise & Anor v Proprietors of Strata Plan 21513 [2009] WADC 115
JUDGE GILLAN:
This is an appeal from the decision of his Honour Magistrate Walton dismissing proceedings brought in the minor case division of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia.
The matter was a minor case claim within the meaning of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (the Act). It may be helpful to set out the relevant legislative provisions before considering the detail of the matter.
Legislative provisions and the law pertaining to appeals in a minor case claim
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Section 4 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA) provides that a court of record called the Magistrates Court of Western Australia is established. By s 6(1) a magistrate has the functions imposed or conferred on a magistrate by laws that apply in Western Australia, including that Act and other written laws. By s 9 the Magistrates Court has the jurisdiction conferred on it by that Act and by the written laws.
Section 10 of the Magistrates Court Act provides the court's civil jurisdiction is as set out in the Act.
Section 13 of the Magistrates Court Act provides that:
The Court, in exercising its discretion, is to decide all questions of fact and law.
Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004
Section 6 of the Act provides that the court has jurisdiction to deal with various matters, for example, a claim for a debt or a claim…
Continue reading Yuzheng v Bowditch
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Yuzheng v Bowditch [2018] WADC 50
- Case
- [2018] WADC 50
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether there had been a denial of natural justice, specifically an assertion of bias by the magistrate. Yuzheng contended that the magistrate had exhibited actual bias, prejudicing the proceedings against him. The court was required to determine whether the magistrate's actions and comments indicated a prejudgment or partisanship that demonstrated an inability to remain impartial.
The court examined the magistrate's conduct throughout the proceedings, including comments made during settlement attempts and the magistrate's handling of the evidence presented. The court concluded that while the magistrate had made some preliminary comments, these did not indicate actual bias. The magistrate had provided the appellant with ample opportunities to present evidence and arguments, and the decision was based on a fair and considered assessment of all the evidence. The court found that the magistrate had not prejudged the case or acted with hostility, thereby upholding the original decision.
In light of the above, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Magistrates Court was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
These are allegations of actual bias. The onus of establishing the facts from which an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias, or actual bias, is made lies on the party making it. Actual bias occurs when the tribunal has pre‑judged the case against a party, or acted with such partisanship or hostility that it shows that the tribunal has its mind made up against that party and was not open to persuasion: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Afffairs v Jia [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507 [36], [72]; Waters v Williams [2013] WADC 169 (Davis DCJ). To establish actual bias the appellant needed to establish that his Honour's mind was already made up and was incapable of alteration whatever evidence or arguments were presented: Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 110 [5] (Newnes JA), Waters v Williams. Of course for apparent bias there is a lower threshold. It was discussed in De Alwis v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2015] WASCA 42 where the court stated [67] – [70]:67It appears the appellant's claim is of actual and apprehended bias. In the case of apprehended bias, the test is whether a fair‑minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide: The Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v De Alwis [2006] WASCA 198 [64].68The apprehension of bias principle involves two steps. First, it requires the identification of what it is said might lead a judge or juror to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits. Second, there must be an articulation of the logical connection between the matter and the feared deviation from the course of deciding the case on its merits: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337 [8]. 69…70In judging whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias, it should be assumed that the lay observer would base his or her opinion on a fair assessment of the judge's conduct in the context of the trial as a whole: Galea v Galea … . I have read the whole of the transcript in this matter and reviewed all exhibits. The appellant claims a substantial number of matters indicate that his Honour was prejudiced against him. In particular, he points to some of the comments made by his Honour during the course of attempting to settle the matter. I have reviewed those comments as well as the transcript of the trial itself. Even if it could be said that his Honour had indicated a preliminary view, his Honour then went on and heard all of the evidence that the appellant wanted to present. He gave the appellant additional opportunities to put on evidence and listened to that evidence. It is clear from his reasons for decision, which were substantial and considered, that he considered the appellant's case properly. The real complaint is that his Honour's conclusion was adverse to the appellant and that the court did not accept all of his evidence and submissions. Clearly it is the case that the court at first instance made a decision that is not to the appellant's liking.