The District Court Rules 2005 (WA) have been amended with effect from 19 August 2013. There are three main amendments, the two most important relating to:

The Inactive Cases List:

  • There is a new obligation in Rule 37 that, unless otherwise ordered, a plaintiff has to enter an action for trial within 120 days of the filing of the first defence.

  • This is to address the issue raised in Ruby v Doric Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2013] WASCA 94 (a case we reported on in our April update) in which the District Court dismissed Ruby's claim for damages after it had been placed on the Inactive Cases List.

    Ruby appealed, arguing that no entry for trial date had ever been established in any timetable relating to the action. The basis upon which the District Court had placed the action in the Inactive Cases List (and upon which it had been subsequently dismissed) was the date for entry for trial in the "standard timetable". This is a timetable circulated by the Court after the filing of a defence. It does not amount to an order specifying the dates by which certain actions are to be taken but amounts to a timetable that should be followed, being itself subject to specific orders that a Case Management Registrar may make.

    The simple argument was that as no order relating to Ruby's obligation to enter the case for trial had ever been made, there was in fact no timetable applicable to the action and hence the case could not have become inactive. As the administrative determination that Ruby's had become inactive was in error, the dismissal was invalid and the appeal was allowed.

    Under the amendment, a date for entering the matter for trial is now fixed by Rule 37.

  • Rule 38 has been amended to allow any party to enter a case for trial, even after it has been placed on the Inactive Cases List.
  • Rule 44E has been amended to allow a defendant to file an appearance in a case on the Inactive Cases List.

The second relates to early return subpoenas (i.e. returnable before trial), a useful tool in any party's litigation tool-box. The main changes more closely align the District Court and Supreme Court practice:

  • The District Court no longer requires the issuing party to file a chamber summons and will no longer make orders in relation to each early return subpoena.
  • All the issuing party needs to do is to file 3 copies of the proposed subpoena.
  • Registry staff will now deal with these matters within parameters to be set out in a new Circular to Practitioners to be issued prior to commencement. Applications outside the parameters will be referred to a Registrar.
  • Documents may now be produced in PDF format on a DVD in addition to a CD ROM.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Kott Gunning is a proud member of