Woods, W.C. v Walsh, D.W. & Ors [1987] FCA 679

Woods, W.C. v Walsh, D.W. & Ors [1987] FCA 679

The magistrate did not fail to exercise jurisdiction or commit a reviewable error as there was a general and unequivocal finding that Wiltshire and Steinberg had no common purpose. The magistrate did not rely on irrelevant considerations but referenced relevant factors, and the applicant failed to establish a ground warranting the order of review.

Parties
Applicant: Warren Clive Woods; First Respondent: David Wilford Walsh; Second Respondent: Malcolm David Steinberg; Third Respondent: Ivan Harold Wiltshire
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1987
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings, Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction
Administrative Law Judicial Review of Committal Proceedings Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warren Clive Woods

Applicant

David Wilford Walsh

First Respondent

Malcolm David Steinberg

Second Respondent

Ivan Harold Wiltshire

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate failed to address the correct question of law in committal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether there was a failure to exercise jurisdiction justifying review
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate relied on irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate did not fail to exercise jurisdiction or commit a reviewable error as there was a general and unequivocal finding that Wiltshire and Steinberg had no common purpose. The magistrate did not rely on irrelevant considerations but referenced relevant factors, and the applicant failed to establish a ground warranting the order of review.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the costs of the second and third respondents to be taxed.