Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA)

Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36

Nugawela v American Express Australia Ltd [2016] WADC 170

Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255

TAH v The Public Advocate [2024] WADC 71

Ward v West Coast Suzuki Marine Pty Ltd [2021] WADC 37

[This decision was delivered extemporaneously on 28 August 2025 and edited from the transcript.]

1. This is an appeal from a decision of Magistrate Owen-Conway made on 11 April 2025 for summary judgment for the City of Wanneroo (City) against David Mitchell without trial.[1]
2. The appellant, Mr Mitchell, is the defendant in the proceedings in the Magistrates Court (Magistrates Court Proceedings).
3. By application for summary determination and assessment dated 5 February 2025, the City sought judgment as against Mr Mitchell in respect of the Magistrates Court Proceedings (Application).[2]
4. By general order made on 11 April 2025, the learned magistrate, upon hearing the parties in relation to the Application, made orders in terms of the Application and entered judgment for the City against Mr Mitchell without trial in the sum of $3,683.14 plus costs of the action assessed and fixed in the sum of $5,400 and totalling $9,083.14 (Decision).[3]
5. By notice of appeal filed and dated 30 April 2025, Mr Mitchell appeals against the Decision.
6. The appeal proceeded to substantive hearing on 28 August 2025. Prior to the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, Mr Mitchell, who was self-represented, was given the opportunity to consider his grounds of appeal and the evidence that Mr Mitchell sought to rely on in support of his appeal.
7. For the reasons that follow the appeal is dismissed.

1. The appeal is brought pursuant to s 40 of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA) (Magistrates Court Act).[4]
2. An appeal from a decision of a magistrate to the District Court is by way of rehearing. It is not a hearing de novo. Given the appeal is by way of a rehearing it is necessary for the appellant to demonstrate error in the court below. This error must be a legal, factual or discretionary error.[5]

1. The Magistrates Court Proceedings were commenced by a general procedure claim on 19 February 2024 naming the City as the claimant and Mr Mitchell as the defendant.[6]
2. The City claimed against Mr Mitchell the amount of $3,485.11 for arrears of rates, service charges, emergency services levies, and/or other charges accrued until 19 February 2024 for local government assessment 2264980 (Rates) relating to the property located at Banksia Grove (Property) and pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LGA Act), the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998 (WA) (FESA Act), and Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WA) (WARR Act) (collectively 'Acts'), plus the City's costs.
3. The general procedure claim was reissued on 1 November 2024 and the amount claimed was increased by $137.50 to include the cost of the reissue. The amount now sought by the City against Mr Mitchell in its general procedure claim totalled $3,622.61.

1. The City, in its statement of general procedure claim dated 9 December 2024, alleges amongst other things that:

(a) it is the local government authority for the district of Wanneroo (District) entitled to raise general and waste rates and service charges and levies upon land in the District pursuant to the Acts;

(b) since 17 November 2008, David Mitchell, the appellant in this appeal, has been a registered proprietor of the Property and liable for the Rates owing on the Property;

(c) as at 19 February 2024, the outstanding Rates had accrued on the Property totalling $3,028.11 (Arrears);

(d) the City has and will incur costs of proceedings for recovery of the Arrears (Recovery Costs);

(e) interest has and will accrue on the Arrears and Recovery Costs (Interest);

(f) Mr Mitchell is liable to the City for the Arrears, Recovery Costs and Interest (Outstanding Amounts); and

(g) Mr Mitchell has failed to pay any or all of the Outstanding Amounts, which remain due and payable.

1. Mr Mitchell's defence is at times difficult to follow. However, in broad terms, in his statement of defence to the general procedure claim, dated 8 January 2025 (Defence), Mr Mitchell pleads, amongst other things, as follows:

(a) that in or around July 2023, following numerous phone calls, he was informed by a Ms Joanne Murray of the City's Rates Department regarding not receiving any rates notice statements from 2016 - 2023 that:

(i) Australia Post had not returned any mail back to the City; and

(ii) Mr Mitchell did not owe any rates at the moment.

(b) that on or about 24 August 2023, having attended the City's council offices, he was informed by a front counter staff member that he owed approximately $3,000 in outstanding rates;

(c) that on or about 24 August 2023, Mr Mitchell entered into a payment arrangement with the City and proceeded to make the following three instalment payments totalling $3,550 (Installation Payments):

(i) payment in the amount of $1,650 made on 24 October 2023;

(ii) payment in the amount of $1,000 made on 26 October 2023; and

(iii) payment in the amount of $900 made on 12 December 2023.

(d) that Ms Murray discriminates Mr Mitchell's eligibility to a rates discount rebate in respect of the Rates; and

(e) that Mr Mitchell seeks reimbursement of his entitlement [and] a credit towards his future rates notices statements.

1. The City in its reply to the statement of defence dated 10 January 2025, save for admitting receipt of the Installation Payments, says that each of those amounts paid had been accounted for by the City in bringing its general procedure in respect of the outstanding Rates.

1. On 5 February 2025, the City applied for summary determination and assessment.[7] The City's Application was for the full amount claimed in the Magistrates Court Proceedings being:

(a) the outstanding Rates that had accrued on the Property totalling $3,028.11 (Arrears) as at 19 February 2024;

(b) the costs of proceedings for recovery of the Arrears (Recovery Costs); and

(c) interest on the Arrears and Recovery Costs (Interest).

1. On 11 March 2025, Mr Mitchell filed his response to the Application.[8]

1. The hearing on 11 April 2025 was held before Magistrate Owen-Conway. Mr Bradley appeared on behalf of the City. Mr Mitchell was self-represented.
2. During the course of the hearing, the learned magistrate raised the fact that Mr Mitchell had not discharged his obligation to 'create a defence that has any hope of success' if the matter were to be sent to trial.[9] The learned magistrate observed that:[10]

So what has been produced to me by Mr Bradley, and now produced by you, makes it clear to me that, having paid $3550 in 2023, you still owe by April 2024, $3504.29, which is roughly the amount that the council is saying you owed as at that date in Mr Bradley's own schedule. And everything after that date is interest and fees, of court fees and legal fees.

1. To the extent Mr Mitchell had a different view, the learned magistrate observed that there is no evidence to support this view, including in his affidavit in response to the Application.[11] Importantly, the learned magistrate observed as follows:[12]

The documents that you've provided to me today [Mr Mitchell], equally, do not provide you with a defence. And the material that I have before me from the claimant, now that it has been explained, does provide me with the evidence that well supports that claim. And in the face of any defence to it, I'm inclined to order the summary judgment amount. In addition to that, the claimant will be seeking the cost of today.

...

The documents that you've provided me today, Mr Mitchell, which is the email from Joanne Murray of 19 April 2024, that I will upload that to the court as a document that's agreed to be given to the court today, even though it's not attached to an affidavit. And there is another document that has a schedule that shows something similar, which I will upload. That has been agreed to be given to me today by Mr Bradley. It's your document. I have to say that the documents that you've given me do not assist you in this matter.

1. In delivering the Decision ex tempore, the learned magistrate made the following orders:[13]
   1. The Claimant's Form 23 - Application lodged on 5 February 2025 is granted.
   2. Pursuant to section 18(2) of the Magistrates Court (Civil Proceedings) Act 2004, judgment is entered for the Claimant and against the Defendant without trial in the sum of $3,683.14 being arrears of unpaid rates and levies, inclusive of interest pursuant to section 6.51 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA), regulation 71 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, and section 36S(1) of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 1998 (WA), plus costs of the action (including the costs of the Claimant's Application referred to in Order 1 above and the costs of the hearing on 11 April 2025) assessed and fixed in the sum of $5,400 and totalling $9,083.14.

1. The grounds of appeal, as they appear in the notice of appeal, are as follows:

Magistrate finding of = $3,683.14 was paid on the 24/08/2023 = $1,650 and on the 26/10/2023 = $1000, also on 12.12.2025 = $900.

...

1. I turn now to two preliminary procedural matters arising in respect of this appeal and address each one in turn below.

1. In a document entitled 'Appellant's Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal' filed 27 July 2025, Mr Mitchell set out, at Attachment A, his amended notice of appeal, along with his amended grounds of appeal, which Mr Mitchell further refined in his outline of submissions filed 29 July 2025 (collectively the appellant's grounds of appeal). Mr Mitchell relies on the following four grounds of appeal:
   1. Ground 1: Denial of natural justice on the basis of being denied the opportunity to be heard in a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal.
   2. Ground 2: Error of law on the basis that the learned magistrate

erred in law Pursuant to the LGA Act 1995, sub (2) 6.19 to give Yearly Notice of Assessment of Rates for Payments in accordance with Sub (4) Payments of Rates Charges and Service fees and Charges.

1. Ground 3: Irreparable damage to the appellant.
2. Ground 4: Abuse of process and unlawful enforcement actions.
3. Except with leave of the court, a party to an appeal is not entitled to seek any relief or rely on any ground that is not set out in the notice of appeal or the answer, as the case may be: District Court Rules 2005 (WA) r 56 (DCR). At the hearing of this appeal, Mr Mitchell sought leave of the court to amend his grounds of appeal to reflect the grounds set out in Mr Mitchell's document entitled 'Amended Notice of Appeal' being Attachment A to the document entitled 'Appellant's Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal' filed 27 July 2025.
4. Leave to amend the grounds of appeal in accordance with DCR r 56 is hereby granted.

1. At the hearing of an appeal a party must not adduce evidence that was not adduced in the primary court except with leave of the court: DCR r 50(2).
2. Leave to admit additional evidence should not be used to rectify perceived weaknesses in a case already presented.[14] Ordinarily, a court will refuse to admit new evidence on appeal unless the court is satisfied that the new evidence will have led to a different outcome if it had been led in the court below.[15]
3. During the course of his oral submissions, Mr Mitchell sought to rely on additional primary materials by way of statements of proof of payment to demonstrate historical payments made to the City in respect of certain rates. Specifically, information relating to a $14,000 payment that was made by Mr Mitchell to the City in or around 2021. On the City's submission, this information related to Mr Mitchell's rates account with the City prior to the claim period the subject of the magistrate's court proceedings.
4. Mr Mitchell was not able to advance, in any meaningful way, where these historical purported 'proof of payments' sat in respect of the appeal. It follows that I was not able to be satisfied that this new evidence would have led to a different outcome if it had been led in the court below.
5. As a result, leave to admit additional evidence was not pressed and was in any event refused.

1. Mr Mitchell's written submissions dated 24 July 2025 states as against Ground 1 that:
   1. He was denied the opportunity to be heard in a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal.
   2. He was denied access to the court duty solicitor and legal assistance.
   3. The magistrate failed to properly consider and investigate his affidavit and documentary evidence before making 'adverse findings'.
   4. The respondent (the City) was permitted to file affidavits containing misleading and contradictory statements without scrutiny by the court.
   5. The respondent (the City) initiated claims based on misinformation and material inaccuracies.
   6. He was 'denied Council access to critical Rate information, copies of Rate notice and payment receipt, Financial Years, starting from 2019 to current Year 2025', and that (the City) refused a $2,500 payment he wanted to deposit into his council rate account on 1 November 2024.
2. Mr Mitchell restated and endeavoured to further develop his submissions orally during the course of the hearing of the appeal. From time to time, Mr Mitchell submitted evidence from the bar table and made reference to evidence and material not before the court but elected not to rely on this evidence other than to make mention of the fact that:
   1. He had made the Installation Payments to the City totalling $3,550 for the following amounts and at the following dates:

(i) payment in the amount of $1,650 made on 24 October 2023;

(ii) payment in the amount of $1,000 made on 26 October 2023; and

(iii) payment in the amount of $900 made on 12 December 2023.

1. He should not have been in Arrears as he continued to make advance payments to the City at all relevant times, including during periods when Mr Mitchell asserts he did not receive rates notices from the City (which is not accepted by the City).
2. There is no evidence before this court of any of the matters in respect of the advance payments and any corresponding 'credit' in the City's accounting of Mr Mitchell's rates when issuing its notices at all relevant times.
3. The City relied on the affidavit of Timothy Bradley sworn 5 February 2025[16] (Bradley Affidavit) in support of the Application. Mr Bradley relevantly deposed as follows:
   1. Since 17 November 2008, Mr Bradley has been a registered proprietor with the Housing Authority, with 60/100 shares and 40/100 shares respectively of the Property.[17]
   2. Between 1 July 2002 until the commencement of the general procedure claim, the City issued various rates notices for the Property:

1. Interest under the LGA has accrued on the unpaid rates and charges at a rate of 5% per annum from 1 June 2022 (LGA Interest).[19]
2. Interest under the FESA Act has accrued on unpaid emergency services levies for the Property (FESA Interest) at a rate of 7% per annum from 1 July 2022; and then at 11% per annum from 1 July 2023.[20]
3. On 23 November 2023, the City discontinued earlier rate recovery proceedings reference PER/GCLM/2877/2023 (Earlier Proceedings) as a result of Mr Mitchell having made the Installation Payments.[21]
4. The City has incurred costs for the Earlier Proceedings in the amount of $5,168.50.[22]
5. The City's estimated claimed debt (at the time) totals $7,930.72.[23]
6. Attachment '09'[24] to the Bradley Affidavit is a copy of an email from Mr Bradley to Mr Mitchell dated 9 December 2024 which relevantly provides as follows:
   1. I confirm the payment of $3,550.00 was recorded on the account - i.e. the claim is balance after that payment was applied.
   2. The claim is only for arrears owing at 19 February 2024 for about $3,000 and only relates to rating items raised in:

(b) Sums arising after the claim started, like the items raised by the 2024 Rate Notice issued 19 August 2024.

1. Section 6.76 of the Local Government Act 1994 (LGA) required any objection to be made within 42 days of the Rate Notice if there is an alleged error with the rate record.

1. The Magistrates Court File includes a copy of correspondence sent by the City's legal representatives to the Civil Registry of the Perth Magistrates Court dated 11 April 2025 attaching the following documents:

(i) 'City's Claim Calculations' tendered by the City at the hearing of the summary judgment application before the learned that day (ie 11 April 2025); and

(ii) Copy email dated 19 April 2024 from Ms Murray to Mr Mitchell entitled 'Rates Breakdown - Property - Assessment Number 2264980' (Assessment Number 2264980 Email).[25]

1. The document entitled 'City's Claim Calculations' records as follows in respect of outstanding rates and payments and records the three Installation Payments made by Mr Mitchell totalling $3,550 leaving a balance of $8,508.21 as at 11 April 2025:

(a) provides a transaction summary for the rates for the Property per year and relevantly records a balance of $3,497.26 owing for the 2024 year; and

(b) states that 'The outstanding balance on this account as of 4pm today is $3,504.29'.

1. To the extent that Mr Mitchell is asserting that the learned magistrate erred in overlooking the evidence, such a contention has no merit. The learned magistrate expressly referred to the amount of the Rates owing at the hearing of the Application, during which Mr Mitchell conceded that the debt was owing after accounting for the Installation Payments:[26]

HER HONOUR: Yes. So are you conceding that you owe $3504.29 as at 19 April 2024, regardless of what year it's for.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes.

HER HONOUR: And that you did not pay that amount.

MITCHELL, MR: Hard for me to understand. Maybe. Maybe it's right, but if that's for 2024, then yes, I do owe that, yes.

HER HONOUR: Once you received this email of 19 April 2024, did you then go and pay any money to the council?

MITCHELL, MR: Well, the only thing I can remember is those three payments I've done.

HER HONOUR: They are already included.

MITCHELL, MR: Is it?

HER HONOUR: Yes.

1. The learned magistrate was not prepared to accept Mr Mitchell's submission that he did not receive the notice for the 2024 rates, and went on to observe that:[27]

HER HONOUR: Right. Well, if you don't have a clue, then there is no challenge to this claim, because the material that you have produced to me - - -

MITCHELL, MR: Yes.

HER HONOUR: - - - shows that you owed last year, almost to today, $3504.29, which is not very far away from what the claimant says you owed around that date.

MITCHELL, MR: Okay.

HER HONOUR: You have not paid it. And everything that has been added to your account since then is because of these proceedings.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes.

HER HONOUR: Or the interest that accrues on a daily basis to this at 11 per cent, or whatever percent the statute, the regulations provide for.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes. That's correct.

HER HONOUR: Okay. So that brings us to today, where you owe, if I were to include the amount that they've incurred in costs without assessing them, $8508.21. Nearly 4000 of that relates to these proceedings.

1. The learned magistrate made note of the evidence Mr Mitchell tendered from the bar table at the hearing in support of his claim and said:[28]

HER HONOUR: This is the general procedure claim. You have not paid this. This general procedure claim was started on 19 February 2024. You had already paid $3550 the year before.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes. That's correct. That's the one that I handled, but anything after that, so you're saying that general procedure is another one.

HER HONOUR: I'm just telling you what you've given me. I don't know what - you have given me two pieces of paper.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes.

HER HONOUR: One is against you.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes.

HER HONOUR: One doesn't help you, but if that's what you've got, that doesn't help you. It doesn't challenge the claimant's claim. It actually assists improving the claimant's claim for summary judgment.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes.

HER HONOUR: Everything else after that, I'm not going to use precise figures, but everything after that is attributable to the costs incurred by the claimant in bringing this action. The pleadings, the general procedure claim, the service, the statement of general procedure claim, responding to your defence claim. And the only thing that's missing is the cost of today; is that correct, Mr Bradley, just the cost of today?

BRADLEY, MR: Yes. That's right, your Honour.

1. To the extent that it is being alleged that the learned magistrate made some factual error in overlooking the matters that Mr Mitchell says are relevant, I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing of the Application and such a contention has no merit. It may be seen from the learned magistrate's reasons, as reflected in the transcript of the hearing of the Application, that she was cognisant of those matters.
2. Nor is it evident to me that there is any error in the learned magistrate's reasoning.
3. In my view, there is no merit in Ground 1.

1. Ground 2 is 'Error of Law'.
2. Mr Mitchell's submissions on Ground 2 seem to relate to matters set out in Ground 1. Mr Mitchell's submissions on Ground 2 say that:
   1. The magistrate erred in law pursuant to the LGA Act to give Yearly Notice of Assessment of Rates for Payments in accordance with sub (4) payments of Rates Charges and Service fees and Charges.
   2. The appellant (Mr Mitchell) confirm Payments of Rates. On 24 June 2023 well prior to the due dates ending of October.
   3. Failing to give proper consideration to the appellant's (Mr Mitchell's) evidentiary exhibits, including Rate Notices, Council Rate Statements, and related financial records.
   4. Accepting conflicting affidavits from the Respondent (the City) without adequate examination of factual inconsistencies.
   5. Failing to properly apply the LGA, including provisions concerning statutory duties, procedural fairness and honest administration.

1. The learned magistrate took into account the affidavit of Mr Mitchell in response to the Application sworn 21 February 2025[29] wherein the learned magistrate observed:[30]

HER HONOUR: I've got a one-page affidavit from you and another one-page affidavit from you. I don't have any other affidavit from you. I've got one from - - -

MITCHELL, MR: All right.

HER HONOUR: I've got two from Mr Bradley.

1. The learned magistrate considered that none of the submissions put to the court by Mr Mitchell, based on the evidence presented, were an explanation for Mr Mitchell's failure to meet payment of the outstanding Rates:[31]

HER HONOUR: On what basis? Well, that's a matter for you. But if there's something that you want to say, you don't like the costs. You don't think the costs are fair. The law isn't fair. None of those are not helpful.

MITCHELL, MR: No, no, no, it's not that. It's they didn't give me a chance to pay my bills by giving me a time or notice to say, "Yes, your bill." Whether it's $1600 or $800, that's where the problem was. Every time I go into the account, they said my balance is good. It's good. It's good.

HER HONOUR: Okay. I don't have any of that evidence.

MITCHELL, MR: And then the following month I went back there, there's $3000. I went - - -

HER HONOUR: Mr Mitchell, you've really got to understand this. I don't have any of that evidence. And the information that you're giving me is so imprecise and so loose that I can't give it any weight. Even if I put you in the witness box and ask you to take the oath or affirmation, you are not precise enough in what you are telling me.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes. Not precise. Okay. Fair enough.

HER HONOUR: I need dates and amounts, and none of that information is before me. All the information that is helpful to you is actually already before me.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes. All right. So you're saying then the general procedure that was issued to me, that amount 3600 I paid, so what's that one? What did I pay, 2023 or - - -

HER HONOUR: That was paid before this claim, Mr Mitchell.

BRADLEY, MR: That was claimed - you paid that in 2023. This claim was started in 2024. So it has been applied against the account. And the figures might look round about the same, but they're different figures.

MITCHELL, MR: Yes. Yes.

BRADLEY, MR: The balance that was still owing when we started.

1. Nor is it evidence to me that there is any error in the learned magistrate's reasoning.
2. To the extent that it is being alleged that the learned magistrate made some error in fact and overlooked the fact that Mr Mitchell had adduced evidence in support of his contention that the learned magistrate failed to give proper consideration to Mr Mitchell's evidentiary exhibits, there is no merit to such a contention. It is evident from the learned magistrate's reasons that she considered the evidence before her.
3. In my view, there is no merit in Ground 2.

1. Ground 3 is 'Irreparable Damage to the Appellant'.
2. Mr Mitchell's submissions on Ground 3 is premised on the decision of the primary court being erroneous such that it has caused significant and ongoing prejudice to him, including severe financial hardship, reputational harm and the unjust continuation of enforcement proceedings in the primary court despite the valid lodgement of this appeal.
3. I have considered these matters and they seem irrelevant to me in the context of this appeal, and more specifically, having had regard to where such a ground as put forward by Mr Mitchell sits as against the matters to be satisfied in the context of an appeal to this court when one has regard to the principles set out in Brocklehurst v Wolinski and Ward v West Coast Suzuki Marine Pty Ltd.
4. That is, it is necessary for Mr Mitchell, in the context of Ground 3 of amended notice of appeal to demonstrate error in the court below, and this error must be legal, factual or discretionary.
5. In my view, there is no merit in Ground 3.

Ground 4: Abuse of process and unlawful enforcement actions

1. Ground 4 is 'Abuse of Process and Unlawful Enforcement Actions'.
2. Mr Mitchell's submission, in effect, is that the City is precluded from proceeding with enforcement proceedings in the Magistrates Court arising out of the Decision as a result of this appeal. No authority is provided in support of this proposition.
3. Further, there is nothing before this court to demonstrate that there has been any, or any successful, application for a stay for execution filed or granted in respect of the enforcement of the judgement of the Magistrates Court.
4. In my view, there is no merit in Ground 4.

1. During the course of his submissions, Mr Mitchell raised various other matters that can be loosely characterised as a lack of natural justice and being afforded procedural fairness. Although those matters do not seem to relate to any specific ground of appeal, given that Mr Mitchell is self-represented, I have also considered whether any of these matters demonstrate an error on the part of the learned magistrate.
2. The suggestion that the primary court proceedings held on 11 April 2025 were procedurally unfair due to a lack of fair hearing including:

(a) as a result of relevant facts and documents being allegedly withheld from Mr Mitchell by the City;

(b) the City allegedly failing to issue proper rates notices since 2019 in breach of its obligations;

(c) Mr Mitchell being denied access to a duty lawyer;

(d) difficulties with the Magistrate's Court's online lodgement eCourts Portal;

(f) bias on the part of the learned magistrate; and

1. Relevantly, there is no material in support before this court to advance any of these general assertions. More generally, having reviewed the transcript of the hearing before the learned magistrate available to me, and reviewing the materials, it is not apparent that Mr Mitchell was denied natural justice or procedural fairness. As noted earlier, the learned magistrate took into account the affidavit of Mr Mitchell in response to the Application sworn 21 February 2025[32] and considered that none of the submissions put to the primary court by Mr Mitchell, based on the evidence presented, were an explanation for Mr Mitchell's failure to meet payment of the outstanding Rates.[33]
2. Rather, at the hearing on 11 April 2025, the learned magistrate allowed Mr Mitchell the opportunity to put his position to the learned magistrate and the learned magistrate raised with him the matters that the learned magistrate considered necessary to permit Mr Mitchell to respond.
3. With respect to the evidence Mr Mitchell sought to adduce from the bar table at the hearing of the Application, a review of the transcript shows that the learned magistrate dealt with this, having considered the weight to be attributed to any such evidence in the context of her discretionary powers.[34]
4. None of these matters have any relevance. As a consequence, I do not consider any of these matters have any merit in the context of the submissions put to the court by Mr Mitchell in the context of this appeal.

1. It is not apparent to me that the learned magistrate made any error.
2. I will dismiss the appeal.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.

[1] Magistrates Court Matter Book, page 588 (Magistrates Court File).

[4] Notice of appeal filed 30 April 2025.

[5] Brocklehurst v Wolinski [2015] WADC 36 [13] - [15]; Ward v West Coast Suzuki Marine Pty Ltd [2021] WADC 37.

[8] Magistrates Court File, pages 350 - 351.

[9] Magistrates Court Transcript of Proceedings heard on 11 April 2025 (MC ts), page 39.

[14] TAH v The Public Advocate [2024] WADC 71 [112] (Gething DCJ); Nugawela v American Express Australia Ltd [2016] WADC 170 [16], [20] (Bowden DCJ) (Nugawela).

[15] Shilkin v Taylor [2011] WASCA 255 [66] - [70].

[17] Magistrates Court File, page 30, par 4 and Annexure '01', pages 36 and 37.

[18] Magistrates Court File, page 31, par 5 and Annexure '02', pages 38 - 41.

[19] Magistrates Court File, page 31, par 6 and Annexure '03', pages 42 - 110: Document entitled 'Council Minutes Confirmed Minutes Special Council Meeting'.

[20] Magistrates Court File, page 31, par 7and Annexure '04', pages 111 - 126: Document entitled 'Western Australian Government Gazette, Perth, Friday 27 May 2022'.

[21] Magistrates Court File, page 31, pars 8 and 9.

[22] Magistrates Court File, page 32, par 10 and Annexure '05', pages 127 - 145.

[23] Magistrates Court File, page 32, par 11 and Annexure '06', page 146.

[24] Magistrates Court File, page 32, par 15 and Annexure '09', pages 156 - 178.

[25] Magistrates Court File, pages 581 - 583.

[29] Affidavit of David Mitchell sworn 21 February 2025.

[32] Affidavit of David Mitchell sworn 21 February 2025.