SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: KAV v Magistrate Bentley & Anor [2016] QSC 46 PARTIES: KAV (Applicant) v MAGISTRATE BENTLEY (First Respondent) and ALV (Second Respondent) FILE NO/S: SC No 513 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Trial Application Supreme Court at Cairns DELIVERED ON: 11 March 2016 DELIVERED AT: Cairns HEARING DATE: 26 February 2016 JUDGE: Henry J ORDERS: 1. It is declared the applicant s application for a protection order was withdrawn on 15 October All orders of the Magistrates Court made in this matter on 15 October 2015 and subsequently are set aside. 3. Failing notice in writing by 4 pm on 29 March 2016 to the Registrar by the parties to the effect they have agreed as to costs, I will hear the parties as to costs at 10 am on 1 April CATCHWORDS: MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - QUEENSLAND - ORDERS TO REVIEW - THE ORDER TO REVIEW - APPLICATION where the applicant seeks a statutory order of review of a decision to prevent the withdrawal of her application for a protection order and the decision to order costs against her where the reviewable matter was the decision to prevent the withdrawal of the application whether the applicant is entitled to seek a review

2 2 under another law so that the application ought to be dismissed pursuant to s 13 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY - DISCONTINUANCE AND WITHDRAWAL where the applicant sought to orally withdraw her application for a protection order prior to hearing where the applicant s withdrawal was voluntary and not made under duress whether Rule 50(a) of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Rules confers an unqualified right upon an applicant for a protection order to withdraw the application orally during proceedings in the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Court before the court decides the application whether the Magistrate erred in refusing to allow the applicant to withdraw her application before the hearing Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) s 8(1)(a), s 8(1)(a)(2), s 12, s 142, s 157, s 164 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Rules (Qld) r 50 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 13 Boal Quay v Kings Lynn Conservancy Board [1971] 1 WLR 1558; [1971] 3 All ER 597, cited Fuller v Toms & Ors [2010] QCA 283, cited Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478, cited R v Jell, ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R 48, cited Schipp v Herfords Pty Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 412, cited COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: G Lynham for the Applicant R Griffith for the Second Respondent O Reilly Stevens Lawyers for the Applicant Miller Harris for the Second Respondent 1 [1] The applicant applied for a domestic violence protection order against her estranged husband, the second respondent. She attempted to withdraw her application at a review mention of the matter 12 days prior to the listed hearing. [2] After hearing further argument at a later date the presiding Magistrate did not permit the application to be withdrawn. Her Honour instead proceeded to hear the application on the papers, dismiss the application and ordered the applicant to pay the second respondent s costs. 1 No appearance was entered for the first respondent (there was evidence of service). The court was advised by an from Crown Law after my decision was reserved advising, as had in any event been inferred at the hearing, that Crown Law, acting on the first respondent s behalf, took the conventional position of abiding the order of the court.

3 3 [3] The applicant seeks a statutory order of review of the decisions to prevent the withdrawal of the application and the decision to order costs. As will become apparent it is the decision to prevent the withdrawal of the application which is the substantive target of the application, for if that decision was wrong then the subsequent orders, including the costs order, were beyond jurisdiction. [4] The key issues for determination are: 1. whether the applicant is entitled to seek review under another law so that the application ought be dismissed pursuant to s 13 Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) ( Decision reviewable? ); and 2. whether the Magistrate could or should have prevented the applicant s withdrawal of her application for a protection order ( An applicant s right to withdraw an application for a protection order ). [5] To understand those issues it will be necessary by way of background to explain the course this matter took below. That course is more readily understood if the erroneous motivation which drove it is identified at the outset. The erroneous motivation driving events below [6] The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) ( the DFVP Act ) only confers a limited power to award costs. Section 157 provides: 157 Costs (1) Each party to a proceeding for an application under this Act must bear the party s own costs for the proceeding. (2) However, the court may award costs against a party who makes an application that the court hears and decides to dismiss on the grounds that the application is malicious, deliberately false, frivolous or vexatious. (3) In this section party includes an aggrieved. [7] The effect of s 157 is that three elements must be satisfied before a court s discretion to award costs in an application for a protection order is enlivened: (1) the court must hear the application; and (2) the court must dismiss the application; and (3) the grounds for dismissal must be that the application is malicious, deliberately false, frivolous or vexatious. [8] If any of those elements are not met, then the court has no power to award costs at all. Thus the discretion to award costs will not be enlivened simply because an application is malicious, deliberately false, frivolous or vexatious. If such an application is withdrawn or is dismissed without hearing then each party must bear their own costs. [9] That may seem unjust to parties who have been wrongly put to the expense of seeking legal advice and of preparing to contest the application. On the other hand s 157 may at least deter the pursuit of unmeritorious applications all the way to hearing. But whether or not the players in court regard s 157 as just, or as striking the right balance, is hardly

4 4 to the point. Costs are a creature of statute and can only be awarded in the circumstances stipulated by the legislature. 2 [10] In this case the applicant was wrongly prevented from withdrawing her application and compelled by the court to continue the application to hearing. The rationale for that course, urged robustly and erroneously upon the presiding Magistrate by the second respondent, was it was unjust that s 157 would otherwise deprive the second respondent of the opportunity to seek a costs order against the applicant. Background [11] The applicant and her husband, the second respondent, separated acrimoniously on 22 June [12] Then, on 9 July 2015, during an argument about financial matters, the second respondent allegedly pushed the applicant twice, first onto a lounge and second onto the floor. She called the police who suggested she seek a protection order under the DFVP Act. She did not do so at that stage, although the second respondent soon did. [13] On 14 July 2014 the second respondent made an application for a protection order, including a temporary protection order. His application complained in the main of his estranged wife or her agent stalking him and his new female companion. His application was withdrawn on 20 July [14] Then on 5 August 2015 the applicant made an application for a protection order, including a temporary protection order. Her application complained of the pushing episode of 9 July 2015 and an array of emotional and economic problems caused and being caused to her by her estranged husband s conduct. If the pushing episode occurred it was clearly behaviour within the meaning of domestic violence under s 8(1)(a) of the DFVP Act. Some of the other behaviour complained of arguably came within the wide meaning of economic abuse under s 12 of the DFVP Act and thus within the meaning of domestic violence under s 8(1)(a)(2). It is readily apparent from the application s content that it was not drafted by a lawyer and was drafted at a time of high emotion. [15] On 20 August 2015, the first return date for the application, counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent indicated the application was opposed and a hearing date was required. The applicant informed the court that she was no longer seeking a temporary protection order. The presiding Magistrate listed the application for hearing on 27 October She directed the applicant file and serve affidavits or statements of all witnesses to be called by her before 10 September 2015 and that the second respondent do likewise by 24 September The matter was adjourned for review mention on 15 October Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd (1992) 178 CLR 178, 182; Amos v Monsour Legal Costs Pty Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 304, The transcript records the presiding Magistrate identified the review mention date as being 13 October 2015 but a document provided to the parties listing the directions given on the day the directions were given recorded that date as being 15 October 2015.

5 5 [16] On 28 August 2015 the second respondent s solicitor wrote to the applicant, in a letter endorsed without prejudice, save as to costs, stating he was prepared to forego seeking to recover his current costs if she withdrew her application prior to 10 September The letter urged the applicant to seek legal advice. [17] The applicant did not file any further materials, although her application, already filed, was in the form of a statutory declaration and thus a statement within the meaning of the directions given on 20 August On 24 September 2015 the second respondent s lawyers filed an affidavit by him in which he denied the applicant s allegations. [18] An open letter by the applicant s solicitor to the second respondent s solicitor dated 14 October 2015 indicated, inter alia, that the applicant had prepared her application without the benefit of having legal advice. It is apparent from the letter s content that the applicant s solicitor had contacted the second respondent s solicitor soon after her consultation with the applicant, advising that the applicant would withdraw the application, and that the second respondent s solicitor must have pressed for the applicant to pay some of the second respondent s costs of meeting the application. The letter said on the applicant s behalf: She is withdrawing her Application. Each party should bear their own costs. [19] Such a position as to costs was unremarkable given the matter was not at the hearing stage and the court therefore had no power to award costs. [20] The parties appeared for the listed review mention on 15 October 2015, each represented by counsel. [21] Prior to the review mention the second respondent s counsel had arranged for his written outline of argument to be communicated to the Magistrate. The applicant s counsel had not received a copy of that outline prior to the mention. 4 The outline commenced: It is understood that the Applicant will seek to withdraw her application in Court this morning. The Respondent seeks costs. [22] The outline cited s 157 of the DFVP Act and then continued: To the extent that the wording of sub-s (2) requires that the application be dismissed (as opposed to withdrawn) before the costs jurisdiction can be engaged, the withdrawal is opposed. The application should be dismissed for want of prosecution, and for the reasons expressed hereunder. [23] The outline went on to mount an argument that the proceeding had been brought for the collateral purpose of obtaining material for use in reporting the second respondent to government agencies and for use in family law proceedings. 4 It was said by the second respondent s counsel that a copy of his outline was ed to opposing counsel s instructing solicitor (who it transpires was away) at the same time as he had ed it to her Honour. It is unclear whether the applicant s representatives had consented to this ex parte communication with the court on a matter of substance without first seeing it.

6 6 [24] The outline drew support from reference to correspondence which was not filed or exhibited before or at the mention. This included reference to letters, touching upon costs between the legal representatives, of 8 October and 13 October, each of which had been endorsed without prejudice. 5 [25] At the outset of the review mention the applicant s counsel informed the court: Your Honour, the applicant intends to withdraw her application today. [26] The second respondent s counsel responded: Your Honour, that s in light of the interpretation that my learned friend is placing on section 157 with regard to costs, that application is opposed. As in, the application to withdraw. for the obvious reason that it s a blatant attempt to circumvent a costs application. [27] The learned Magistrate said in the course of the review: I mean, I suppose one issue that did occur to me and I haven t looked at it in any detail is whether I can refuse an application to withdraw. I suppose it is an application. So--- [28] The second respondent s counsel indicated he was not then in a position to argue that issue. It is not apparent why. The second respondent s representatives were on notice the applicant was withdrawing and his counsel s outline shows it was understood that was to occur at the review mention. Her Honour considered the issue needed to be argued and directed the second respondent s counsel to submit further written submissions on the point by 16 October 2015 and the applicant to file submissions in response by 23 October The matter was listed for argument on 11 November The fact the hearing date was set for 27 October was not expressly addressed but it is implicit in the argument being listed for 11 November that the forthcoming hearing date was treated as vacated. [29] When the review mention resumed for argument on 11 November 2015 there were no further oral submissions in respect of the exercise of the court s power to prevent the withdrawal of an application for a protection order. Her Honour proceeded to dismiss what she characterised as the application to withdraw, giving reasons. In doing so she expressed the view that the pushing allegation was the only allegation capable of amounting to domestic violence. [30] Further argument then ensued, in the course of which her Honour indicated she did not agree that she could strike out the application, as had been sought by the second respondent s counsel, because if she did so she could not award costs. She pointed out that if the second respondent wanted her to award costs the application had to be heard and determined. [31] The applicant s counsel indicated, consistently with the applicant s desire to withdraw the application, that she did not wish the matter to be heard. Her Honour indicated she was happy to hear and determine the matter on the material before her that day, intimating, 5 In contrast to some other correspondence that was endorsed without prejudice, save as to costs.

7 7 in effect, that she would either proceed to hear the matter that day or hear an application for an adjournment by the applicant for the matter to be heard on some subsequent day. [32] A short adjournment occurred to allow instructions to be taken and on resumption the applicant s counsel said: Your Honour, my instructions are that given your Honour s earlier ruling about the application to withdraw, the aggrieved wishes, if your Honour is minded to hear the matter, despite her earlier attempts to withdraw it, she wishes your Honour to hear that on the papers. [33] It is obvious that course was taken because the presiding Magistrate had by this stage made plain her intention, come what may, to press on and hear and decide the matter. [34] Her Honour proceeded to indicate she had read the material and invited submissions as to whether she should make a domestic violence order. In light of the applicant s desire not to pursue the application, the applicant s counsel submitted there was no need to make the protection order. [35] Her Honour found that the applicant s claim was frivolous, that the grounds contained in it were insufficient on which to base an application for a domestic violence order and that the application was made in order to assist the applicant in her property settlement proceedings. Her Honour ruled: I dismiss the application having heard it on the basis that it was frivolous. [36] Such a ruling meant the three elements of s 157 were met. Her Honour proceeded to order the applicant to pay the respondent s costs to be assessed, certifying that both solicitor and counsel were justified in the matter. Decision reviewable? [37] The applicant seeks a declaration that her application for a protection order is withdrawn and an order quashing the decision dismissing her application to withdraw and awarding costs against her. [38] That relief is sought pursuant to pt 5 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) which in effect continues the court s power to grant a relief or remedy of the kind previously provided by way of a writ of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari and confers the right to make application for a declaration even if a prerogative order is not sought. [39] The second respondent relies upon s 13 of the Judicial Review Act to argue at the threshold that the application ought be dismissed. Section 13 provides: 13. When application for statutory order of review must be dismissed Despite section 10, but without limiting section 48, if (a) an application under section 20 to 22 or 43 is made to the court in relation to a reviewable matter; and

8 8 (b) provision is made by a law, other than this Act, under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review of the matter by another court or a tribunal, authority or person; the court must dismiss the application if it is satisfied, having regard to the interests of justice, that it should do so. [40] Counsel for the second respondent submitted the applicant could seek a review of the matter by an appeal to the District Court and that it was not in the interests of justice for this judicial review application to proceed. [41] It was submitted that s 164 of the DFVP Act affords an aggrieved spouse that right of appeal. Section 164 provides: 164 Who may appeal A person who is aggrieved by any of the following decisions of a court may appeal against the decision (a) a decision to make a domestic violence order; (b) a decision to vary, or refuse to vary, a domestic violence order; (c) (d) a decision to refuse to make a protection order; if the person sought a temporary protection order in a proceeding under this Act a decision to refuse to make the order. [42] The decision prompting the present application is the decision to not permit the applicant s withdrawal of her application. If that decision was wrong and the application should have been regarded as withdrawn, then the presiding Magistrate had no jurisdiction to proceed to hear the matter and decide to make the ensuing orders. [43] The reviewable matter 6 here is the decision to prevent the withdrawal of the application. That is not a decision referred to in s 164 of the DFVP Act. However the second respondent contends it was an interlocutory step which was, in effect, part of the decision to refuse to make a protection order. The second respondent is in effect contending for the curious position that the applicant has the right to appeal against the refusal of an order she was not seeking. [44] In the High Court, in Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd 7 the plurality affirmed the general principle that on appeal from a final order an appellate court may correct any interlocutory order that affected the final order: In the course of a trial, and even before the trial commences, interlocutory orders may be made which affect the substantive rights of the parties. Rulings that are made in the course of trial about what evidence will be admitted are an obvious example. To adopt a rule that precluded challenging any interlocutory order except by an appeal against that order would provoke unnecessary multiplication and fragmentation of proceedings. It is not surprising, then, that in at least some circumstances, a party may challenge the correctness of the final judgment entered in a matter on the ground that some interlocutory decision was wrong. 6 A term defined in s 3 as meaning, inter alia, a decision. 7 (2002) 209 CLR 478.

9 9 The proposition that any interlocutory order can be challenged in an appeal against the final judgment in the matter is often stated in unqualified terms. The better view, however, is reflected in the formulation adopted in Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley where it is said that On an appeal from the final order an appellate court can correct any interlocutory order which affected the final result (emphasis added). 8 [45] The decision not to permit the withdrawal of the application was not an interlocutory decision falling within the principle discussed in Gerlach s Case. [46] It was quite different than the example, cited in Gerlach s Case, of evidentiary rulings. Evidentiary rulings affect the final result because they affect the substance or merits of what is before the court in deciding whether to make or refuse an order. The only sense in which the decision here affected the final result is that the matter remained before the court. Of itself that fact had no bearing upon whether or not an order should be made. [47] Even if the above conclusion is incorrect, the obligation to dismiss the application pursuant to s 13 only arises if I am satisfied, having regard to the interests of justice that I should do so. I would not in any event be so satisfied, because the merits of the application have been fully argued in this forum without disadvantage to either party. 9 An applicant s right to withdraw an application for a protection order [48] The DFVP Act does not make express provision for the withdrawal of a complaint. However, pursuant to s 142 of the DFVP Act, the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Rules apply for a proceeding in a court under the DFVP Act. Those rules do make provision for the withdrawal of an application. Rule 50 provides: 50 Withdrawal of DFVP application (1) An applicant may withdraw a DFVP application before a DFVP court decides the application in 1 of the following ways (a) orally during a proceeding in a DFVP court; (b) in writing to the clerk of the DFVP court (an application to withdraw). (2) An application to withdraw must state the following (a) the name of the person withdrawing the DFVP application; (b) the role of the person in the proceeding that is to be withdrawn, including whether the person is, represents or is acting on behalf of, a party to the proceeding; (c) the proceeding in which the application is to be withdrawn, including the name of the parties and the file number; (d) the date of the next court appearance for the proceeding, if the person knows the date. 8 Ibid 482, 483 (citations omitted). 9 Cf Stubberfield v Webster [1996] 2 Qd R 211 where the merits had not been fully argued.

10 10 (3) If the clerk of the DFVP court receives an application to withdraw, the clerk must send a copy to the nearby police officer for service on the other parties in the proceeding. (4) The nearby police officer must personally serve a copy on the other parties in the proceeding. (5) A DFVP court may decide an application to withdraw without the parties appearing, unless a DFVP court orders otherwise. [49] Rule 50(1)(a) confers an apparently unqualified right upon an applicant for a protection order to withdraw the application orally during a proceeding in a Domestic and Family Violence Protection Court before the court decides the application. The balance of the rule is concerned with what the rule describes in short form in r 50(1)(b) as an application to withdraw. That is, where an applicant withdraws the protection application in writing to the Clerk of the Court. The use of that short form description in r 50 appears to have resulted in the parties in the court below referring to the applicant s attempt to withdraw the application for a protection order on 15 October 2015 as an application to withdraw, notwithstanding that it occurred orally during the proceeding rather than in writing to the Clerk of the Court. [50] The second respondent submitted that the reference in r 50(5) to the fact that the court may decide an application to withdraw carries with it the implication generally that a court must have the power to refuse the withdrawal of an application regardless of whether the purported withdrawal occurs in writing or orally in court. However the reference to decide in r 50(5) is only to a court deciding an application to withdraw which, in the context of r 50, only relates to a purported withdrawal in writing to the Clerk of the Court. The notion that a court may decide a purported withdrawal in writing to the Clerk of the Court but has no particular decision to make in the event of a withdrawal made orally during a proceeding is consistent with the structure of r 50 s machinery provisions regarding written applications. Those provisions herald a need for care in ensuring all parties are made aware of the written application and the potential need to require the appearance of the parties, neither of which needs are likely to be present when an application is made orally during the proceeding in court. [51] It might be that a power to prevent a withdrawal of an application for a protection order can be implied, from the court s power to control and prevent an abuse of its own process, 10 for the narrow purpose of preventing a withdrawal which is not genuinely made because the applicant is acting under duress. However that does not fall for determination here because that was not the basis for refusing the withdrawal. [52] The power to refuse a withdrawal was regarded as akin to an unfettered discretion below. It was there argued and accepted that the power fell to be exercised in the same way as the discretion to grant or refuse an application for leave to discontinue. Of that discretion Fraser JA observed in Fuller v Toms & Ors, 11 citing Graham J in Covell Matthews & Partners v French Wools Ltd: R v Jell, ex parte Attorney-General [1991] 1 Qd R [2010] QCA 283, [25]. 12 [1977] 1 WLR 876, 879.

11 11 The discretion to grant or refuse leave to discontinue is not fettered, but the court ordinarily grants leave if that will not cause injustice to the opponent, since it is ordinarily not desirable to compel a claimant to litigate. [53] However r 50 is not couched in terms requiring the applicant to seek leave to withdraw an application for a protection order. Even if a court had a narrow implied power to prevent a withdrawal, which is not genuinely made, that would not provide a basis to imply a power so broad as to equate to an unfettered discretion whether or not to grant leave. The latter discretion only arises by reason of a legislative requirement, not present here, to seek leave. In Boal Quay v Kings Lynn Conservancy Board [1971] 1 WLR 1558; [1971] 3 All ER 597 it was relevantly observed by Salmon LJ: Whenever an application is made to a tribunal or to the courts for that matter, as a rule, there is nothing to compel you to go on with it. You are entitled to withdraw your application at any stage. It is quite true that the legislature sometimes, for policy reasons, lays down that an application made under a statute cannot be withdrawn in specified circumstances. But quite independently of authority it seems to me to follow on principle that in the absence of a statutory prohibition, once you have made an application you can always withdraw it; and once you have withdrawn the application, it ceases to exist. 13 [54] In Schipp v Herfords Pty Ltd 14 Samuels JA, with whom Reynolds JA agreed, said of the above reference by Salmon LJ that, while obiter, it correctly sets out the true position. 15 In Schipp Mahoney JA observed: I must myself confess to feeling, uninstructed by authority, that in many cases injustice may well be done if a person in the position of a plaintiff can proceed to the point of judgment and then, having decided that he may fail, or having been told that he is about to fail, withdraw his proceeding as of right. However, intuitive feelings for justice have been said to be a poor substitute for a rule antecedently known, more particularly where all do not have the same intuitions ; and the right of a person in the position of a plaintiff so to withdraw is, it has been said, based upon authorities dating back to the time of Coke. 16 [55] In dismissing what her Honour incorrectly characterised as an application to withdraw her Honour held: [A] court may dismiss an application to withdraw and should do so where to do otherwise would result in injustice to the respondent. In the circumstances of this case, I find that to allow the applicant to withdraw her application at this stage of the proceedings would be unjust to the respondent, and I dismiss the application to withdraw. [56] For the above reasons r 50 did not confer an unfettered discretion upon the presiding Magistrate to permit or prevent the applicant to withdraw her application. There was no cause for concern here that the applicant s withdrawal was anything other than voluntary. 13 Ibid 1569; 604, [1975] 1 NSWLR Ibid 422 (citations omitted). 16 Ibid 429 (citations omitted).

12 12 It was the court s response which wrongly turned the attempted oral withdrawal into an application. The proper construction of the applicant s counsel s oral submission on 15 October 2015 is to regard it as an oral withdrawal during a proceeding in a DFVP court within the meaning of r 50. What followed ought be regarded as a nullity because the application, having been withdrawn, should have been regarded as no longer being before the court. [57] Even if I am wrong and if the learned presiding Magistrate did have an unfettered discretion whether to permit or prevent the withdrawal by reference to whether injustice would be caused to the respondent, her Honour nonetheless erred in not permitting the withdrawal. The only basis advanced for there being any injustice to the respondent was that the respondent would, in consequence of the withdrawal being allowed, be deprived of a then non-existent right to seek costs. What was urged on and accepted by the court as a means of preventing injustice was really just a construct designed to avoid the orthodox application of s 157. [58] It is unnecessary to consider whether the position might be different in the extreme example posited in submissions, of a withdrawal being attempted during a hearing, prior to the Magistrate s decision. That was not the situation below. The listed hearing was still 12 days away when the applicant attempted to withdraw her application. [59] What followed after the refusal of the withdrawal only serves to confirm the nature of the error. On an occasion when the hearing was not listed to proceed the applicant was given no practical choice other than to acquiesce to a hearing on the papers of an application which she no longer sought the granting of. That contorted course was undertaken solely to afford the second respondent an opportunity to pursue a costs order against the applicant. The taking of such a course demonstrates that in truth the injustice which the refusal of the withdrawal served to prevent was the correct application of s 157(1) and its requirement that the second respondent would have to bear his own costs. Conclusion [60] For the above reasons the application for a declaration must succeed. [61] The appropriate and simplest course is to declare the application was withdrawn on 15 October 2015 and set aside the orders made then and subsequently. [62] As to costs, s 49(4) of the Judicial Review Act provides the rules of court apply to this proceeding. The general rule, in r 681(1) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, is that costs are in the discretion of the court but follow the event unless the court orders otherwise. It is difficult to imagine, particularly given the course urged by the second respondent below, that costs should not follow the event. However the parties should be heard on the issue, unless they agree as to costs. Orders [63] My orders are:

13 13 1. It is declared the applicant s application for a protection order was withdrawn on 15 October All orders of the Magistrates Court made in this matter on 15 October 2015 and subsequently are set aside. 3. Failing notice in writing by 4 pm on 29 March 2016 to the Registrar by the parties to the effect they have agreed as to costs, I will hear the parties as to costs at 10 am on 1 April 2016.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Burragubba & Anor v Minister for Natural Resources and Mines & Anor (No 2) [2017] QSC 265 ADRIAN BURRAGUBBA (first applicant) LINDA BOBONGIE, LESTER BARNADE,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Eyears v Zufic [2016] QCA 40 PARTIES: MARINA EYEARS (applicant) v PETER ZUFIC as trustee for the PETER AND TANYA ZUFIC FAMILY TRUST trading as CLIENTCARE SOLICITORS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: A Top Class Turf Pty Ltd v Parfitt [2018] QCA 127 PARTIES: A TOP CLASS TURF PTY LTD ACN 108 471 049 (applicant) v MICHAEL DANIEL PARFITT (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145 MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (applicant/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tynan & Anor v Filmana Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2015] QSC 367 PARTIES: DAVID PATRICK TYNAN and JUDITH GARCIA TYNAN (plaintiffs) v FILMANA PTY LTD ACN 080 055 429 (first

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Shorten v Bell-Gallie [2014] QCA 300 PARTIES: IAN RODGER WILLIAM SHORTEN (applicant) v SHIRLEY BELL-GALLIE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 11869 of 2013 QCAT Appeal

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cousins v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2006] QCA 261 PARTIES: TRENT JEFFERY COUSINS (applicant/appellant) v MT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 (respondent/respondent) FILE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Queensland Nickel Sales Pty Ltd v Glencore International AG & Anor [2016] QSC 269 QUEENSLAND NICKEL SALES PTY LTD (applicant) v GLENCORE INTERNATIONAL AG

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd [2005] QCA 406 PARTIES: LEONARD CASTILLON (plaintiff/respondent) v P & O PORTS LIMITED ACN 000 049 301 (defendant/appellant) FILE NO/S:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 3696 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Midson Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Building and Construction Commission

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Schepis & Anor v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 263 PARTIES: ANTHONY SCHEPIS (first plaintiff/first appellant) MICHELE SCHEPIS (second plaintiff/second

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 297 IAN JAMES ERICSON (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)

More information

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Waterman & Ors v Logan City Council & Anor [2018] QPEC 44 NORMAN CECIL WATERMAN AND ELIZABETH HELEN WATERMAN AS TRUSTEE UNDER INSTRUMENT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Perpetual Limited v Registrar of Titles & Ors [2013] QSC 296 PARTIES: PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Ford; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 440 PARTIES: R v FORD, Garry Robin (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND FILE NO/S: CA No 189 of 2006 DC No

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Witheyman v Van Riet & Ors [2008] QCA 168 PARTIES: PETER ROBERT WITHEYMAN (applicant/appellant) v NICHOLAS DANIEL VAN RIET (first respondent) EKARI PARK PTY LTD ACN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Drakos & Anor v Keskinides [03] QCA 9 PARTIES: HAROLD STANLEY DRAKOS and CONSTANTINE GEORGE CASTRISOS trading under the name, firm or style of H. DRAKOS & COMPANY,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL LORNA FARREL. and NATHANIEL ST. VILLE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL LORNA FARREL. and NATHANIEL ST. VILLE SAINT LUCIA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL MAGISTERIAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2003 BETWEEN: LORNA FARREL and Appellant NATHANIEL ST. VILLE Before: The Hon. Mr. Adrian Saunders The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, S.C. The

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: State of Queensland v O Keefe [2016] QCA 135 PARTIES: STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant/appellant) v CHRISTOPHER LAURENCE O KEEFE (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 9321

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED. and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CIVIL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2002 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ST. KITTS NEVIS ANGUILLA NATIONAL BANK LIMITED and CARIBBEAN 6/49 LIMITED Appellant Respondent Before: The Hon. Mr.

More information

COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009

COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Anderson v Langdon & Anor [2018] QCA 297 PARTIES: STEPHEN JOHN ANDERSON (applicant) v SCOTT DAVID HARRY LANGDON AND JARROD LEE VILLANI as joint and several liquidators

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: David & Gai Spankie & Northern Investment Holdings Pty Limited v James Trowse Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] QSC 29 DAVID & GAI SPANKIE & NORTHERN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Dariush-Far v Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney General [2018] QCA 21 ALEXANDER HAMID DARIUSH-FAR (applicant) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review NORMAN CHARLES RODRIGUEZ CLAIM NO 275 OF 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE AD 2014 IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to apply for Judicial Review AND IN THE MATTER of section 13 of the Belize City Council Act, Cap 85

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Mowen v Rockhampton Regional Council [2018] QSC 44 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: S449/17 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: BEVAN ALAN MOWEN (Plaintiff) v ROCKHAMPTON

More information

IN THE NSW SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEAL No of 2013 BRETT ANTHONY COLLINS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES

IN THE NSW SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEAL No of 2013 BRETT ANTHONY COLLINS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES IN THE NSW SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEAL No 29443 of 2013 SYDNEY REGISTRY Between: BRETT ANTHONY COLLINS Applicant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW SOUTH WALES Respondent AMENDED APPLICANT S REPLY TO THE OPPOSING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Doolan and Anor v Rubikcon (Qld) Pty Ltd and Ors [07] QSC 68 SANDRA DOOLAN AND STEPHEN DOOLAN (applicants) v RUBIKCON (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 099 635 275 (first

More information

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Phipps v The Chief Executive Department of Local Government, Infrastructure and Planning and Phipps v Somerset Regional Council and Anor

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Martinek Holdings Pty Ltd v Reed Construction (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 329 PARTIES: MARTINEK HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 106 533 242 (applicant/appellant) v REED CONSTRUCTION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kelly [2018] QCA 307 PARTIES: R v KELLY, Mark John (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 297 of 2017 DC No 1924 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Togito Pty Ltd v Pioneer Investments (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2011] QSC 21 TOGITO PTY LTD (plaintiff) v PIONEER INVESTMENTS (AUST) PTY LTD (first defendant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: LQ Management Pty Ltd & Ors v Laguna Quays Resort Principal Body Corporate & Anor [2014] QCA 122 LQ MANAGEMENT PTY LTD ACN 074 733 976 (first appellant) LAGUNA

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 2011 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 2011 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 2011 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BELIZE Appellant v BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED and THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED Respondents BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Dennis

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Three P/L v Body Corporate for Savoir Faire Community Titles Scheme 3841 [2008] QCA 167 PARTIES: THREE PTY LTD ACN 069 497 516 (respondent/plaintiff/respondent) v

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE AND THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. #2010-04494 BETWEEN P.C. CURTIS APPLEWHITE Claimant AND THE POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION BASDEO MULCHAN LLOYD CROSBY Defendants BEFORE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Bourne v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 231 KATRINA MARGARET BOURNE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Uzsoki v McArthur [2007] QCA 401 PARTIES: KATHY UZSOKI (plaintiff/respondent) v JOHN McARTHUR (defendant/applicant) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5896 of 2007 DC No 1699 of

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,

More information

The Small Claims Act, 2016

The Small Claims Act, 2016 1 SMALL CLAIMS, 2016 c S-50.12 The Small Claims Act, 2016 being Chapter S-50.12 of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2016 (effective January 1, 2018). *NOTE: Pursuant to subsection 33(1) of The Interpretation

More information

ADEQUACY OF REASONS. By Justice Emilios Kyrou, Supreme Court of Victoria

ADEQUACY OF REASONS. By Justice Emilios Kyrou, Supreme Court of Victoria ADEQUACY OF REASONS By Justice Emilios Kyrou, Supreme Court of Victoria Paper delivered at the Council of Australasian Tribunals Conference on 30 April 2010 Introduction 1. In the context of courts and

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: D322/08 PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Body Corporate for Sunseeker Apartments CTS 618 v Jasen [2009] QDC 162 BODY CORPORATE FOR SUNSEEKER APARTMENTS

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau [2.003] 0 SC 056 State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Stratford & Ors [2003] QSC 427 PARTIES: FILE NO: S6632 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: GLENN NEIL TAYLOR (applicant) v GRAHAM STRATFORD (first respondent) and

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Gillam v State of Qld & Ors [2003] QCA 566 PARTIES: GORDON WILLIAM GILLAM (applicant/respondent) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND through Q BUILD (first respondent) WATPAC LIMITED

More information

Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY MISS EASHA MAGON. and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC

Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY MISS EASHA MAGON. and ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE PLC IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON Case No: B53Y J995 Court No. 60 Thomas More Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Friday, 26 th February 2016 Before: MR RECORDER BERKLEY B E T W

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau 1^003] QSC. M-G Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be

More information

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965

BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RULES OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BERMUDA BX 1 / 1965 [made under section 9 of the Court of Appeal Act 1964 and brought into operation on 2 August 1965] TABLE OF CONTENTS

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau c* State Reporting Bureau jaocqjqsc Queensl Government Department of Justice Attorney-General C-/YS> Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Owen v Edwards [2006] QCA 526 PARTIES: OWEN, Ronald (applicant/appellant) v EDWARDS, Darren Andrew (respondent) FILE NO/S: CA No 106 of 2006 DC No 17 of 2005 DIVISION:

More information

Complaints against Government - Administrative Law

Complaints against Government - Administrative Law Complaints against Government - Administrative Law CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Judicial Review or Administrative Appeal 2 Legislation Regarding Judicial Review or Administrative Appeals 3 Structure

More information

JUDGMENT. Honourable Attorney General and another (Appellants) v Isaac (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda)

JUDGMENT. Honourable Attorney General and another (Appellants) v Isaac (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda) Easter Term [2018] UKPC 11 Privy Council Appeal No 0077 of 2016 JUDGMENT Honourable Attorney General and another (Appellants) v Isaac (Respondent) (Antigua and Barbuda) From the Court of Appeal of the

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Mathews [2012] QCA 298 PARTIES: R v MATHEWS, Russell Gordon Haig (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 235 of 2012 CA No 272 of 2012 CA No 273 of 2012 CA No 274 of 2012

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Matrix Projects (Qld) Pty Ltd v Luscombe [2013] QSC 4 PARTIES: MATRIX PROJECTS (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 089 633 607 trading as MATRIX HOMES (Applicant) v TONY JASON LUSCOMBE

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GAGELER J PLAINTIFF S3/2013 PLAINTIFF AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR DEFENDANTS Plaintiff S3/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] HCA 22 26

More information

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Capilano Honey Ltd v Dowling (No 1) Medium Neutral Citation: [2018] NSWCA 128 Hearing Date(s): 15 June 2018 Date of Orders: 15 June 2018 Date of

More information

Complaints against Government - Judicial Review

Complaints against Government - Judicial Review Complaints against Government - Judicial Review CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Review of State Government Action 2 What Government Actions may be Challenged 2 Who Can Make a Complaint about Government

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Hall [2018] QSC 101 PARTIES: THE QUEEN v GRAHAM WILLIAM McKENZIE HALL (defendant) FILE NO: Indictment No 0348/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

Before : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN and LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS Between : - and -

Before : LADY JUSTICE ARDEN and LORD JUSTICE BRIGGS Between : - and - Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWCA Civ 1034 Case No: B5/2016/0387 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM Civil and Family Justice Centre His Honour Judge N Bidder QC 3CF00338 Royal Courts

More information

Judgment delivered on the 21st day of February locations throughout Australia but, so far as relevant here, at its office at 345 Queen

Judgment delivered on the 21st day of February locations throughout Australia but, so far as relevant here, at its office at 345 Queen IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND Brisbane CA No 10157 OF 2002 Before McPherson JA Davies JA Philippides J [St George Bank Ltd v McTaggart & Ors; [2003] QCA 59] BETWEEN AND AND AND ST

More information

Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege

Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege EVIDENCE Another Strahan case loss of legal professional privilege JACKY CAMPBELL,JANUARY 2014 CCH LAW CHAT Jacky Campbell Forte Family Lawyers CCH Law Chat January 2014 Another Strahan case - Loss of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D.2009 CLAIM NO: 317 OF 2009 BETWEEN: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLAIMANT OF BELIZE APPLICANT AND 1.BELIZE TELEMEDIA LTD 2.BELIZE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. 1 ST DEFENDANT RESPONDENT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: DPP (Cth) v Corby [2007] QCA 58 PARTIES: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (COMMONWEALTH) (applicant) v SCHAPELLE CORBY (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 1365 of 2007

More information

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: PARTIES: APPLICATION NO/S: MATTER TYPE: Patty v Queensland Police Service Weapons Licensing Branch [2018] QCAT 387 JON VICTOR PATTY (applicant) v

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Day v Queensland Parole Board [2016] QSC 11 PARTIES: TREVOR DAY (applicant) v QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD (respondent) FILE NO/S: SC No 5174 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Donovan v Donovan [09] QSC 26 PARTIES: LYNDA JANE DONOVAN (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF RONALD JOSEPH DONOVAN) (applicant/cross-respondent) v HELGA DONOVAN (AS EXECUTOR

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 4490 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: John Holland Pty Ltd v Schneider Electric Buildings Australia Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 159 JOHN HOLLAND

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Spain v Commonwealth of Australia [2015] QSC 258 PARTIES: ERIC RAYMOND SPAIN (plaintiff) v COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (defendant) FILE NO: 2923 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 CLAIM No. 292 of 2014 BETWEEN: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2015 IN THE MATTER OF Section 113 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, Chapter 91 of the Laws of Belize AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: In the matter of: ACN 103 753 484 Pty Ltd (in liq) formerly Blue Chip Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2011] QSC 64 TERRY GRANT VAN DER VELDE AND DAVID MICHAEL

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Haley & Anor v Roma Town Council; McDonald v Romijay P/L & Ors [2005] QCA 3 ALEXANDER JOHN HALEY (first applicant/first respondent) BENTILLI PTY LTD ACN 071

More information

GOTTERSON JA: On the 27th of September 2013, the applicant, James Boyd Thompson,

GOTTERSON JA: On the 27th of September 2013, the applicant, James Boyd Thompson, [2015] QCA 10 COURT OF APPEAL CARMODY CJ GOTTERSON JA MORRISON JA Appeal No 5483 of 2014 SC No 9148 of 2013 JAMES BOYD THOMPSON Applicant v CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIEL RESCUE (QLD) INC LAURENCE JOHN

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 12888 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Taylor v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [2011] QSC 8 SYLVIA PAMELA TAYLOR (appellant)

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Hatton v Westaway [2005] QSC 051 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 504 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: ELAINE JOAN HATTON (Plaintiff) v LESLIE WESTAWAY and MARGARET

More information

FRASER JA: On 28 November 2018, after a hearing in QCAT, an adjudicator made an order

FRASER JA: On 28 November 2018, after a hearing in QCAT, an adjudicator made an order [2019] QCA 2 COURT OF APPEAL FRASER JA Appeal No 14249 of 2018 QCATA No 348 of 2018 DAVID JOSEPH PARKER Applicant v CRAIG MITCHELL Respondent BRISBANE WEDNESDAY, 30 JANUARY 2019 JUDGMENT FRASER JA: On

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Neil Page v John Thompson and Lesley Dwyer, As Chief Executive Officer, West Moreton Hospital and Health

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Westfield Ltd v Stockland (Constructors) P/L & Ors [2002] QCA 137 PARTIES: WESTFIELD LTD ACN 000 317 279 (applicant/applicant) v STOCKLAND (CONSTRUCTORS) PTY LIMITED

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 309 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 12009 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: DAVID JAMES TAYLOR, by his Litigation Guardian BELINDA

More information

New South Wales Court of Appeal

New South Wales Court of Appeal BCS Strata Management Pty. Limited t/as Body Corporate Services v. Robinson & Anor.... Page 1 of 10 New South Wales Court of Appeal [Index] [Search] [Download] [Help] BCS Strata Management Pty. Limited

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Pike v Pike [2015] QSC 134 PARTIES: Adam Lindsay PIKE (applicant) v Stephen Jonathan PIKE (respondent) FILE NO: SC No 3763 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION January 2005 Preface In a court proceeding, while orders as to costs are ultimately left to the discretion

More information

CHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence

CHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence CHECKLIST FOR RULE 61 APPEALS TO AN APPEAL DIVISION I N D E X 61.02 Leave to Appeal 61.03 Commencement of Appeals 61.04 Certificate or Agreement Respecting Evidence 61.05 Cross-Appeals 61.06 Amendment

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Brisbane City Council v Gerhardt [2016] QCA 76 PARTIES: BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (applicant) v TREVOR WILLIAM GERHARDT (respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 8728 of 2015

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Nadao Stott v Lyons and Stott (as executors) [2007] QSC 087 PARTIES: NADAO STOTT (under Part IV, sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981) (applicant) AND FILE NO/S: BS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN AND. Ms. D. Christopher-Noel; Mr. R. Singh and Ms. G. Jackman instructed by Ms. F.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN AND. Ms. D. Christopher-Noel; Mr. R. Singh and Ms. G. Jackman instructed by Ms. F. REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV. No.2009-02631 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN VERNON AND REID Claimant HER WORSHIP THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE JOAN GILL Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE

More information

Supreme Court New South Wales

Supreme Court New South Wales Supreme Court New South Wales Case Name: Munsie v Dowling (No. 7) Medium Neutral Citation: Munsie v Dowling (No. 7) [2015] NSWSC 1832 Hearing Date(s): 30 November 2015 Date of Orders: 4 December 2015 Date

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Oliver v Samios Plumbing Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 236 PARTIES: DANIEL FREDERICK OLIVER TRADING AS TOP PLUMBING (applicant) v SAMIOS PLUMBING PTY LTD ACN 010 360 899 (respondent)

More information

JUDGMENT- LEAVE TO EXECUTE

JUDGMENT- LEAVE TO EXECUTE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/22522 DATE:19/09/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between: PELLOW N.O. ALLAN DAVID 1 st Applicant KOKA N.O. JERRY SEKETE 2 nd Applicant INVESTEC BANK LTD

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 13832/10 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Queensland Harness Racing Limited & Ors v Racing Queensland Limited & Anor [2012] QSC 34 QUEENSLAND HARNESS RACING

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau Qsc 34^ State Reporting Bureau Queensland Government Department of justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings >pyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Andrews v BDS Technical Services P/L & Anor [2003] QSC 469 GRANT JASON ANDREWS v BDS TECHNICAL SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 010 645 619 (first respondent) NETWORK

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Coss [2016] QCA 44 PARTIES: R v COSS, Michael Joseph (appellant/applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 111 of 2015 DC No 113 of 2012 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cox v Strategic Property Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] QSC 111 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 1561/11 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: PETER JAMES COX (applicant) v STRATEGIC

More information

Puri v Viss Group Pty Ltd trading as La Vie Homes (Domestic Building) [2014] VCAT 502

Puri v Viss Group Pty Ltd trading as La Vie Homes (Domestic Building) [2014] VCAT 502 VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D61/2012 CATCHWORDS Adjournment, s98 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, alleged

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Tropac Timbers P/L v A-One Asphalt P/L [2005] QSC 378 PARTIES: TROPAC TIMBERS PTY LTD ACN 108 304 990 (plaintiff/respondent v A-ONE ASPHALT PTY LTD ACN 059 162 186

More information

VIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - [1992] HKCU 0463

VIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - [1992] HKCU 0463 1 VIANINI LAVORI S.P.A. v THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY - [1992] HKCU 0463 High Court (in Chambers) Kaplan, J. Construction List No. 4 of 1992 6 March 1992, 27 May 1992 Kaplan, J. This matter raises

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2007/02055 BETWEEN THE NATIONAL INSURANCE BOARD OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CLAIMANT AND THE NATIONAL INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Pilot Farm Holdings Pty Ltd v Inbiz Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Pilot Farm Unit Trust [2011] QSC 99 PILOT FARM HOLDINGS PTY LTD (applicant) v INBIZ

More information

--- WHELAN J --- ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 896, distinguished. --- Mr A P Trichardt

--- WHELAN J --- ACD Tridon Inc v Tridon Australia Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 896, distinguished. --- Mr A P Trichardt !Undefined Bookmark, I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION Do Not Send for Reporting Not Restricted No. 5774 of 2005 LA DONNA PTY LTD Plaintiff v WOLFORD AG Defendant

More information