Beckmann v Natwest Markets Australia Ltd

99.406

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA PINCUS JA AMBROSE J

Appeal No 8244 of 1999

RICHARD STEPHEN GUNTER	Appellant (Applicant)
and
J C BLOXSOM	First Respondent (First Respondent)
and
G C MURPHY	Second Respondent (Second Respondent)
and
R WOODFORD	Third Respondent (Third Respondent)

BRISBANE
..DATE 22/09/99
220999 T10/JAP22 M/T COA 234/99
DAVIES JA: This is an appeal from an order made by a
Supreme Court Judge on 6 September last that an application
for judicial review under section 43 of the Judicial Review
Act be dismissed with costs.

The order was made because the learned primary Judge was of the view that adequate provision was made in section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 under which the applicant was entitled

to seek a review of the matter by a Court: see the Judicial

Review Act 1991 section 12(b).

Accordingly his Honour, in the exercise of his discretion,
dismissed the application. The application for judicial
review was in respect of convictions of the appellant in the
Magistrates Court of a number of offences under the
Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Regulations 1991. There
was a right of appeal against those convictions to a
District Court Judge pursuant to section 222 of the Justices

Act.

No satisfactory explanation was given by the appellant for
his failure to appeal under that provision. His Honour was
plainly right, in my view, to conclude that section 222 was
an adequate provision under which the appellant was entitled
to seek a review of the matter by an order of a court within
the meaning of section 12(b) and it has not been shown that
the learned primary Judge exercised his discretion wrongly
220999 T10/JAP22 M/T COA 234/99
in making the order which he accordingly did.

There were other applications before his Honour but, as he rightly said, if the application for judicial review was dismissed it would be unnecessary to consider them. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider them here also.

The appeal should therefore, in my opinion, be dismissed with costs.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

DAVIES JA: The orders are as I have indicated.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Beckmann v Natwest Markets Australia Ltd was brought by Richard Stephen Gunter, who sought judicial review of his convictions for offences under the Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Regulations 1991. Gunter was dissatisfied with the outcomes of his convictions in the Magistrates Court and sought to challenge them through an application for judicial review under section 43 of the Judicial Review Act. The respondents to the appeal were J C Bloxsom, G C Murphy, and R Woodford. The case was heard by Davies JA, Pincus JA, and Ambrose J in the Court of Appeal in Brisbane on 22 September 1999.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for judicial review should be dismissed because an alternative remedy was available under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court Judge on the basis that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to appeal under section 222 of the Justices Act, which provided an adequate remedy for the review of his convictions. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the primary Judge exercised his discretion wrongly in dismissing the application for judicial review.

Davies JA, for the Court of Appeal, concluded that the primary Judge was correct in finding that section 222 of the Justices Act was an adequate provision for the applicant to seek a review of his convictions, and that there was no error in the exercise of discretion to dismiss the application for judicial review. Pincus JA and Ambrose J concurred with this decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs, in agreement with the findings and reasoning of the primary Judge.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established