Beames v Justice Margaret Wilson - [2010] QSC 441

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Beames v Justice Margaret Wilson & Anor [2010] QSC 441

PARTIES:

DOUGLAS MACLEOD BEAMES

(respondent/plaintiff)

v

JUSTICE MARGARET WILSON

(first applicant/first defendant)

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(second applicant/second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1557/2010

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Amended Application filed by leave on 11 November 2010 (first applicant/first defendant)

Application filed 26 October 2010 (second applicant/second defendant)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2010

JUDGE:

Byrne SJA

ORDERS:

On the first defendant’s application, the Court orders that:

The plaintiff’s proceeding (“the proceeding”) commenced by Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 16 February 2010 is, so far as it relates to the first defendant, dismissed.1.

The plaintiff pay the first defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including those of the amended application filed by leave on 11 November 2010, to be assessed. 2.

On the second defendant’s application, the Court orders that:

The plaintiff’s proceeding (“the proceeding”) commenced by Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 16 February 2010 is, so far as it relates to the second defendant, dismissed.1.

The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including those of the application filed on 26 October 2010, to be assessed.2.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – JUDGES – Immunity from proceedings – where plaintiff made various allegations against a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland – where proceeding had no prospect of success – Claim dismissed.

PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – Abuse of process – where plaintiff had commenced an action by claim in 1999 in respect of real property – where new claims were substantially the same – whether present proceedings were an abuse of process.

HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – THE FEDERAL JUDICATURE – PROCEEDINGS BY AND AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH – Other matters – where plaintiff intended to deliver notices pursuant to the Judiciary Act 1903, s 78B – where plaintiff alleged the Supreme Court of Queensland was not validly constituted – whether s 78B engaged.

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293, r 389, r 667

Beames v State of Queensland [2010] QSC 4, cited
Daniels v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] SASC 431, followed
Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166, considered
State of Queensland v Beames [2002] QCA 209, cited
State of Queensland v Beames [2003] QSC 399, cited

Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, considered

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf

R J Anderson for the first defendant

D D Keane for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law, Queensland for the first and second defendants

Originating Application dismissed

On 19 January, Margaret Wilson J dismissed Mr Beames’s originating application[1] No. 12359 of 2009 against the State of Queensland seeking relief in respect of land that he had once owned.
[1]Beames v State of Queensland [2010]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beames v Justice Margaret Wilson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QSC 441
Decision Date: 26 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Beames, the plaintiff, and two defendants: Justice Margaret Wilson, a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland, and the State of Queensland. The plaintiff alleged various grievances against Justice Wilson and the State, including claims of judicial misconduct and challenges to the validity of the Supreme Court's constitution. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court had to determine the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claims against the judge and the state, as well as the appropriateness of the plaintiff's actions in initiating the legal proceedings.

The legal issues before the court involved the immunity of a judge from legal proceedings and whether the plaintiff's claims were an abuse of the court process. Specifically, the court had to consider if the plaintiff's allegations against Justice Wilson were of a nature that could be pursued in court, given the principle of judicial immunity, and if the proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to the repetitiveness and lack of merit in the claims. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff's intention to serve notices under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 was relevant to the case, given the allegations about the validity of the Supreme Court's constitution.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding that the proceeding had no prospect of success and amounted to an abuse of process. The court determined that the plaintiff's allegations against Justice Wilson were not suitable for judicial review and that the claims were repetitive and lacked merit. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff's proceeding was an abuse of process and dismissed it entirely. Furthermore, the court held that the provisions of section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 did not apply to the circumstances of this case. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceeding to both defendants.

The Federal Court ordered that the plaintiff's proceeding was dismissed in its entirety and that the plaintiff pay the costs to both defendants. The court found that the proceeding was an abuse of process and that the plaintiff's claims against the judge and the state lacked merit and were repetitious. The court concluded that the proceeding had no prospect of success and that the plaintiff's allegations did not warrant judicial review. The court further held that the provisions of section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 did not apply in this case. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding to both defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

On the first defendant’s application, the Court orders that:

The plaintiff’s proceeding (“the proceeding”) commenced by Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 16 February 2010 is, so far as it relates to the first defendant, dismissed.1.

The plaintiff pay the first defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including those of the amended application filed by leave on 11 November 2010, to be assessed. 2.

On the second defendant’s application, the Court orders that:

The plaintiff’s proceeding (“the proceeding”) commenced by Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 16 February 2010 is, so far as it relates to the second defendant, dismissed.1.

The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including those of the application filed on 26 October 2010, to be assessed.2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Beames v Justice Margaret Wilson & Anor [2010] QSC 441
PARTIES:	DOUGLAS MACLEOD BEAMES (respondent/plaintiff) v JUSTICE MARGARET WILSON (first applicant/first defendant) and STATE OF QUEENSLAND (second applicant/second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1557/2010
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Amended Application filed by leave on 11 November 2010 (first applicant/first defendant) Application filed 26 October 2010 (second applicant/second defendant)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 November 2010
JUDGE:	Byrne SJA
ORDERS:	On the first defendant’s application, the Court orders that: The plaintiff’s proceeding (“the proceeding”) commenced by Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 16 February 2010 is, so far as it relates to the first defendant, dismissed.1. The plaintiff pay the first defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including those of the amended application filed by leave on 11 November 2010, to be assessed. 2. On the second defendant’s application, the Court orders that: The plaintiff’s proceeding (“the proceeding”) commenced by Claim and Statement of Claim filed on 16 February 2010 is, so far as it relates to the second defendant, dismissed.1. The plaintiff pay the second defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding, including those of the application filed on 26 October 2010, to be assessed.2.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – JUDGES – Immunity from proceedings – where plaintiff made various allegations against a Judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland – where proceeding had no prospect of success – Claim dismissed. PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – Abuse of process – where plaintiff had commenced an action by claim in 1999 in respect of real property – where new claims were substantially the same – whether present proceedings were an abuse of process. HIGH COURT AND FEDERAL COURT – THE FEDERAL JUDICATURE – PROCEEDINGS BY AND AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH – Other matters – where plaintiff intended to deliver notices pursuant to the Judiciary Act 1903, s 78B – where plaintiff alleged the Supreme Court of Queensland was not validly constituted – whether s 78B engaged. Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 78B Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 293, r 389, r 667 Beames v State of Queensland [2010] QSC 4, cited Daniels v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] SASC 431, followed Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166, considered State of Queensland v Beames [2002] QCA 209, cited State of Queensland v Beames [2003] QSC 399, cited Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, considered
COUNSEL:	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf R J Anderson for the first defendant D D Keane for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law, Queensland for the first and second defendants