ZAI Motors v Smiler - [2014] WADC 76

ZAI MOTORS -v- SMILER [2014] WADC 76

Last Update: 29/05/2014

ZAI MOTORS -v- SMILER [2014] WADC 76
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WADC 76
Case No:	APP:92/2013	Heard:	23 MAY 2014
Coram:	BOWDEN DCJ	Delivered:	28/05/2014
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

On Appeal from:	Jurisdiction: MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram: MAGISTRATE COCKRAM Citation: KACTC 141 OF 2013
Parties:	ZAI MOTORS TIM SMILER
Catchwords:	Magistrates Court Minor case Appeal Leave to adduce additional evidence Breach of natural justice Appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) s 32, s 40
Case References:	Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40 Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148 Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : ZAI MOTORS -v- SMILER [2014] WADC 76 CORAM : BOWDEN DCJ HEARD : 23 MAY 2014 DELIVERED : 28 MAY 2014 FILE NO/S : APP 92 of 2013 BETWEEN : ZAI MOTORS

Appellant

AND

TIM SMILER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE COCKRAM

Citation : KACTC 141 OF 2013

Catchwords:

Magistrates Court - Minor case - Appeal - Leave to adduce additional evidence - Breach of natural justice - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) s 32, s 40

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : Not applicable

Respondent : Not applicable

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

Allesch v Maunz [2000] HCA 40
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Rankilor v Circuit Travel Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 148
Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255

1 BOWDEN DCJ: On 1 November 2013 his Honour Magistrate Cockram ordered judgment in favour of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $6,739.20. The action was a consumer/trade claim and a minor case within the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (the Act).

2 The judgment arose from the purchase by the respondent of a Hyundai motor vehicle from the appellant on 9 August 2012. The respondent claimed the motor vehicle had a defect when it was purchased and sought compensation, effectively being the cost to fix the vehicle.

3 His Honour heard evidence from the respondent, his partner Ms Thomas and Mr Ahmadzai.

4 His Honour determined the Hyundai was not of an acceptable quality when it was purchased because it had a major defect within the meaning of The Australian Consumer Law (WA) and the reduced value of the vehicle was the cost to fix it being $6,658, which together with allowable costs bought the judgment amount up to $6,739.20.

5 The appellant appeals that decision.

A preliminary issue

6 The respondent was not present at the appeal.

7 On 1 April 2014 Deputy Registrar Hewitt ordered…

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 ZAI Motors v Smiler

Details

AGLC: ZAI Motors v Smiler [2014] WADC 76
Case: [2014] WADC 76
Decision Date: 28 MAY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Magistrates Court heard an appeal from the appellant, ZAI Motors, against a decision of a lower court that dismissed their case. The appellant sought leave to adduce additional evidence, which was denied. The appellant argued that the denial of this request breached the principles of natural justice. The respondent, Smiler, argued that the appeal was without merit and that the appellant's application was an abuse of process. The court was required to decide whether the denial of leave to adduce additional evidence constituted a breach of natural justice and whether the appeal had any merit.

The court found that the appellant's application for leave to adduce additional evidence was an abuse of process and that the lower court's decision to deny leave did not breach the principles of natural justice. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the additional evidence would have made a difference to the outcome of the case and that the application was an attempt to relitigate the case. The court also found that the appeal was without merit and that the lower court's decision was correct.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and made no orders as to costs. The court found that the appeal was frivolous and that the respondent was entitled to be protected from such appeals. The court also found that the appellant had not demonstrated any grounds for allowing the appeal or for granting leave to adduce additional evidence. The court concluded that the appeal was an abuse of the court's process and that it should be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.