Perth Correspondent Sandy Groper brings us up to speed with the latest entries for the coveted Golden Snail.
The headline event was Darren Jackson’s Federal Court findings in Peter Chambers fair work case against his former employer Broadway Homes.
Last November, we reported Chambers’ claims of delay, inefficiency, and the effect this was having on his ability to survive, as the bank hovered over his home.
There was detailed correspondence between Chambers and Debbie Mortimer CJ, where he told her:
“This inefficiency creates a belief within the community that access to justice is only for the rich and powerful that can outlast their opponent.”
Debbie painstakingly explained to the self-represented applicant that Darren was not behind schedule and that the proceeding was being dealt with “in a careful and timely manner”.
Each case, she said, must “take its own individual course”, step by step. She also outlined the ferocious work schedule of federal judges: multiple dockets and trials, appeals, interlocutory work – piling up in many instances to about 100 individual court activities in a year.
See: Grin and bear it
The hearing took place between December 3-5, 2024, with the last submission on January 31, 2025.
Late last year Justice Jackson’s associate advised Chambers that HH “will aim to provide judgment in your matter by the end of January 2026. You may wish to inform the bank accordingly”.
At the time, we thought that HH would probably be deprived of eggnog and cake over Christmas-New Year.
And so it was. True to his word, the judge delivered his reasons on January 30, 2026, finding that the respondents had breached the Fair Work Act and the applicant was entitled to payment in a narrow window of eight days.
Chambers is not happy and says he’ll appeal.
About 80% of Federal Court judgments are delivered within three months, so the result in Chambers v Broadway Homes was three times longer than the preferred target goal for reasons to come ashore.
Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd (No 2)
≈ ≈ ≈
Judge Craig Astill of the WA District Court has been handling Wahhab v BMD Nominees Pty Ltd.
Ms Eliana Wahhab was holidaying in Perth from Jordan. She was so smitten by the charms of the city that she agreed with Mr Wahhab to buy a block of apartments at 12 Heppingstone Street in South Perth.
A deposit of $300,000 was paid, with the purchase conditional on the Wahhabs obtaining finance for the balance – the total sale price was $1.65 million.
The money didn’t turn up, and the plaintiffs sought to terminate the contract. BMD, for its part, was intent on keeping the $300,000.
Eighty pages of thinking and 19 months after the seven days of hearing, Craig decided that the vendor should return the deposit together with any accrued interest.
It is an inordinately long time to come up with a result – especially for someone who is seen as a “welcome addition” to the court.
When he was appointed in November 2023, under the Pipeline for Justice Project, Attorney General John Quigley hailed Astill’s “strong background in criminal law”.
Indeed, for 17 years, he worked at the Office of DPP, including time as a Senior State Prosecutor.
Maybe he should not be allocated cases outside the area of his specialised turf.
≈ ≈ ≈
The WA Supremes also has an entry in the current round of nominations for the Golden Snail.
Master Sarah Russell dallied for one year over whether to set aside a statutory demand for the payment of a disputed debt.
It relates to claims by a pastoral company under a Compensation and Access Agreement for mining interests to explore for minerals within a fenced area on the pastoral lease.
The plaintiff said it has not engaged in mining activities, so it is under no obligation to cough up. In fact, it argued that the proposed nickel project had been mothballed since 2008.
There were various grounds on which the statutory demand should be set aside. The authorities say that the court’s function is to determine whether there is a genuine dispute.
It is not expected to undertake an extended inquiry or attempt to weigh the merits of the dispute, and it is not part of the court’s function to resolve the dispute.
It took 12 months for Master Russell to determine that a genuine dispute didn’t exist.
We’d hate to think how long it will take if there is an in depth probe into the merits of the dispute about the debt.
Wingstar Investments Pty Ltd v Mt Vetters Pastoral Co (1966) Pty Ltd