Woodley v Woodley

[2018] WASCA 149

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Self-represented litigants
4. › Duty of court to self-represented litigant
5. › Whether judge failed to correct misunderstanding about scope of issues
6. › Whether judge required to offer opportunity to amend witness statement
7. › Whether judge required to offer additional hearing time
1. Wills and Probate
2. › Executors
3. › Passing over of named executor
4. › Whether named executors should be passed over for conflict of interest or unsuitability
5. › Whether executor's acrimonious relationships and failure to understand role warranted passing over
6. › Turns on own facts
1. Appeal
2. › Additional evidence on appeal
3. › Whether additional evidence should be admitted
4. › Whether evidence of sufficient probative value
1. Appeal
2. › Credibility findings
3. › Standard of appellate review
4. › Whether adverse credibility finding should be overturned

Quick Take

A court's duty to assist a self-represented litigant does not extend to suggesting amendments to pleadings or witness statements where the litigant has not requested such an opportunity, nor does it require the court to offer additional hearing time where no request is made and no prejudice is demonstrated. The law of procedural fairness is concerned to avoid practical injustice, and a self-represented litigant who professes to understand the court's rulings and does not identify additional evidence that could have affected the outcome has not established a breach of procedural fairness.