Dealing with Procedural Irregularities under the Rules of the Supreme Court in Western Australia

Procedural irregularities occur commonly, and the courts are often called upon to remedy or address these issues.

In this blog post, I discuss how the Rules of the Supreme Court of Western Australia allow the Supreme and District Courts to handle procedural irregularities, with a focus on a recent decision, Hartland -v- Firm Construction Pty Ltd (IN LIQ) [2023] WASC 147.

The Rules of the Supreme Court

The Rules of the Supreme Court (WA) provide a framework for the conduct of civil proceedings in the Supreme Court and District Court.

Addressing Procedural Irregularities

In Hartland -v- Firm Construction Pty Ltd (IN LIQ) [2023] WASC 147, the court was faced with a procedural irregularity relating to the filing of an originating summons.

The plaintiff sought leave to commence civil proceedings against a company in liquidation under section 500(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). However, the plaintiff had not filed an originating process under Rule 2.2 of the Corporations Rules, as required.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 2.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court to treat the originating summons as if it were an originating process filed under Rule 2.2 of the Corporations Rules.

This allowed the plaintiff to continue the proceedings without the need to re-file the documents and start afresh.

This demonstrates the court's willingness to use its discretion to address procedural irregularities where it is appropriate and just to do so.

Factors Influencing the Court's Decision

In deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the court may consider several factors.

These include whether the procedural irregularity caused any prejudice or injustice to the other party, whether the irregularity can be easily remedied, and the overall interests of justice.

In Hartland -v- Firm Construction Pty Ltd (IN LIQ) [2023] WASC 147, the court determined that there was no prejudice to the defendant in treating the originating summons as if it were an originating process and that doing so would further the interests of justice.