Bell v Beattie - [2003] QSC 333

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bell & Anor v Beattie & Ors [2003] QSC 333

PARTIES:

IAN BRUCE BELL
(first applicant)
TREVOR JOHN MAHAFFEY
(second applicant)
v
PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE
(first respondent)
ANNA MARIA BLIGH
(second respondent)
THOMAS ALFRED BARTON
(third respondent)
STEPHEN DOMINIC BREDHAUER
(fourth respondent)
JUNITA IRENE CUNNINGHAM
(fifth respondent)
WENDY MARJORIE EDMOND
(sixth respondent)
MATTHEW JOSEPH FOLEY
(seventh respondent)
PAUL THOMAS LUCAS
(eighth respondent)
TERENCE MICHAEL MACKENROTH
(ninth respondent)
ANTHONY MCGRADY
(tenth respondent)
GORDON RICHARD NUTTALL
(eleventh respondent)
HEINRICH PALASZCZUK
(twelfth respondent)
MICHAEL FRANCIS REYNOLDS
(thirteenth respondent)
STEPHEN ROBERTSON
(fourteenth respondent)
MERRI ROSE
(fifteenth respondent)
ROBERT EVAN SCHWARTEN
(sixteenth respondent)
JUDITH CAROLINE SPENCE
(seventeenth respondent)
RODNEY JON WELFORD
(eighteenth respondent)
DEAN MACMILLAN WELLS
(nineteenth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S7889 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 October 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 September 2003

JUDGE:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

1. The application is dismissed
2. The parties have liberty to make submissions in writing as to costs within 14 days

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW AT COMMON LAW – EXCESS OF POWER AND DEFECTIVE USE OF POWERS – ABUSE OF DISCRETIONARY POWER – IN GENERAL – where decision made to submit legislation to Queensland Parliament prohibiting primary producers sending unpasteurised milk or milk products off their property – where application made during adjournment of second reading debate – where applicants sought declaration that a legislative provision having such effect is ultra vires the Parliament’s capacity – where applicants sought an order of prohibition – where the applicants sought an injunction that such legislation may not be bought before parliament – where respondents brought cross application to strike out proceedings – whether the proposed legislation would contravene public policy requirements of the common law and the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – “DECISION” WITHIN ACT’S APPLICATION – “UNDER AN ENACTMENT” – where applicants sought a statement of reasons under Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) why the decision was made to amend the legislation to enable removal to be prohibited – where twelfth respondent refused reasons –where applicants seek an order that the twelfth respondent provide a statement of reasons for the decision to ban removal – whether decisions reviewable under Judicial Review Act – whether decisions of an administrative character made under an enactment or non-statutory scheme or program

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2), s 24, s 32, s 38
Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 23
Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld), s 8, s 9

Cormack v Cope (1974) 131 CLR 432
Eastgate v Rozzoli (1990) 20 NSWLR 188

COUNSEL:

I B Bell appeared on his own behalf in the application filed 4 September 2003 and in the application filed 12 September 2003
No appearance for the second applicant in the application filed 4 September 2003 or in the application filed 12 September…

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.

Continue reading Bell v Beattie

Details

AGLC: Bell v Beattie [2003] QSC 333
Case: [2003] QSC 333
Decision Date: 8 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bell v Beattie involved an application for judicial review of a decision by the Queensland government to submit legislation to the Queensland Parliament that would prohibit primary producers from sending unpasteurised milk or milk products off their property. The applicants sought declarations that the proposed legislation was beyond the Parliament's capacity and that it contravened public policy. They also sought an order of prohibition to prevent the legislation from being brought before Parliament and an injunction to prevent its enactment. The respondents brought a cross-application to strike out the proceedings.

The primary legal issues were whether the proposed legislation would contravene public policy requirements of the common law and the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld). Additionally, the court had to determine whether the decision to amend the legislation and the refusal to provide a statement of reasons were reviewable under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) and whether they were decisions of an administrative character made under an enactment or non-statutory scheme or program.

The court found that the proposed legislation did not contravene public policy, and thus, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The court held that the decision to amend the legislation and the refusal to provide reasons were not subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act. The court also found that the decision did not constitute an administrative action under an enactment or a non-statutory scheme or program, thereby concluding that the decision was not reviewable. The applicants' requests for a declaration, an order of prohibition, and an injunction were denied. The court further granted the respondents liberty to make submissions regarding costs within 14 days.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed

2. The parties have liberty to make submissions in writing as to costs within 14 days

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:	Bell & Anor v Beattie & Ors [2003] QSC 333
PARTIES:	IAN BRUCE BELL (first applicant) TREVOR JOHN MAHAFFEY (second applicant) v PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE (first respondent) ANNA MARIA BLIGH (second respondent) THOMAS ALFRED BARTON (third respondent) STEPHEN DOMINIC BREDHAUER (fourth respondent) JUNITA IRENE CUNNINGHAM (fifth respondent) WENDY MARJORIE EDMOND (sixth respondent) MATTHEW JOSEPH FOLEY (seventh respondent) PAUL THOMAS LUCAS (eighth respondent) TERENCE MICHAEL MACKENROTH (ninth respondent) ANTHONY MCGRADY (tenth respondent) GORDON RICHARD NUTTALL (eleventh respondent) HEINRICH PALASZCZUK (twelfth respondent) MICHAEL FRANCIS REYNOLDS (thirteenth respondent) STEPHEN ROBERTSON (fourteenth respondent) MERRI ROSE (fifteenth respondent) ROBERT EVAN SCHWARTEN (sixteenth respondent) JUDITH CAROLINE SPENCE (seventeenth respondent) RODNEY JON WELFORD (eighteenth respondent) DEAN MACMILLAN WELLS (nineteenth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	S7889 of 2003
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 October 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 September 2003
JUDGE:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	1. The application is dismissed 2. The parties have liberty to make submissions in writing as to costs within 14 days
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW AT COMMON LAW – EXCESS OF POWER AND DEFECTIVE USE OF POWERS – ABUSE OF DISCRETIONARY POWER – IN GENERAL – where decision made to submit legislation to Queensland Parliament prohibiting primary producers sending unpasteurised milk or milk products off their property – where application made during adjournment of second reading debate – where applicants sought declaration that a legislative provision having such effect is ultra vires the Parliament’s capacity – where applicants sought an order of prohibition – where the applicants sought an injunction that such legislation may not be bought before parliament – where respondents brought cross application to strike out proceedings – whether the proposed legislation would contravene public policy requirements of the common law and the Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION – COMMONWEALTH, QUEENSLAND AND AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – “DECISION” WITHIN ACT’S APPLICATION – “UNDER AN ENACTMENT” – where applicants sought a statement of reasons under Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) why the decision was made to amend the legislation to enable removal to be prohibited – where twelfth respondent refused reasons –where applicants seek an order that the twelfth respondent provide a statement of reasons for the decision to ban removal – whether decisions reviewable under Judicial Review Act – whether decisions of an administrative character made under an enactment or non-statutory scheme or program Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20(2), s 24, s 32, s 38 Legislative Standards Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 23 Parliament of Queensland Act 2001 (Qld), s 8, s 9 Cormack v Cope (1974) 131 CLR 432 Eastgate v Rozzoli (1990) 20 NSWLR 188
COUNSEL:	I B Bell appeared on his own behalf in the application filed 4 September 2003 and in the application filed 12 September 2003 No appearance for the second applicant in the application filed 4 September 2003 or in the application filed 12 September…