Rowe v Stoltze

(2013) 45 WAR 116; [2013] WASCA 92

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › District Court
3. › Inactive Cases List
4. › Deemed dismissal for want of prosecution
5. › Whether court has power to set aside deemed dismissal
6. › Whether r 44G(4) confers power to reverse dismissal
7. › Whether O 3 r 5 permits extension of time after deemed dismissal
8. › Whether implied or incidental powers permit extension
9. › District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 44G(1), r 44G(4)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Rules of court
3. › Rule-making power
4. › Whether rules providing for deemed dismissal are within power to make rules regulating 'practice and procedure'
5. › Whether rules alter substantive rights
6. › District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 88
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Whether deemed dismissal provisions abrogate procedural fairness
4. › Whether party deprived of reasonable opportunity to be heard
5. › Relevance of interests of other litigants and efficient use of court resources
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Chapter III
3. › Courts of a State
4. › Institutional integrity
5. › Whether rules providing for deemed dismissal without judicial order repugnant to judicial process
6. › Whether impermissible delegation of judicial power
7. › Whether denial of right of review
8. › Constitution, s 77(iii), Ch III

Quick Take

Once a case is deemed dismissed under r 44G(1) of the District Court Rules 2005 (WA), the District Court has no power to set aside or reverse the dismissal under any source of power — r 44G(4), O 3 r 5, implied powers, or O 2 r 1(2). The only remedy for a plaintiff is to commence fresh proceedings, subject to any applicable limitation period. The Inactive Cases List provisions are valid exercises of the rule-making power and are not inconsistent with Chapter III of the Constitution.