Bell v Townsend and Ors

Case [2014] QMC 30

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bell v Townsend and Ors [2014] QMC 30

PARTIES:

STEWART LYNN BELL

(complainant)

v

JAKE RANGI TOWNSEND
(defendant)

KAINE BABINGTON
(defendant)

BRETT TREDINNICK
(defendant)

BRENTON DYMOCK

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG-78662/13(1); MAG-80430/13(2); MAG-78678/13(5); MAG-80410/13(1)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Complaint – Application to strike out complaint

ORIGINATING COURT:

Industrial Magistrates Court at Roma

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Charleville

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2014

MAGISTRATE:

Gardiner TD

ORDER:

Complaints struck out, Complainant pay the defendants costs.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW - WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY – PROSECUTION - Application to strike out complaint – Complaint must be made by Commissioner – Whether Commissioner was appointed

COSTS- Special difficulty, complexity or importance, disbursement, counsels fees

Acts Interpretations Act 1991 (Qld), s 15B
Justices Act 1886 s158B(2), s 158(2)
Justices Regulation 2004 schedule 2 an 3
Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004, s837(2), s 837(4)
Public Service Act 2008 s 119(2)(b)
Statutory Instruments Act 1992 (Qld), s 32, s 33
Associated Beauty Aids Pty Limited v Commissioner of
Dean v Attorney-General of Queensland [1971] Qd R 391
Forster v Jododex Australia Pty Limited (1972) 127 CLR 421
In re Flavell [1916] SALR 47
Latoudis v Casey  (1990) 170 CLR 534
Legal Services Commission v Dempsey [2007] QSC 270
Morton v Queensland Police Service [2009] QDC 233
Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1965) CLR 662
Travers v Donagh; Carrey v La Rocca[2013] QDC 177

COUNSEL:

Mr P Callaghan SC and T Ryan for complainant

Ms K Mellifont QC for Townsend

Mr JA Bremhorst for Babington

Mr MJ Byrne QC for Tredinnick

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson Lawyers for complainant

Clayton Utz Lawyers for Townsend

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for Babington

Sparke Helmore Lawyers for Tredinnick

  1. Each defendant, Mr Townsend, Mr Babington, Mr Tredinnick and Mr Dymock are charged by complaint with an offence under s 699 (General obligation to keep risk to acceptable level) and s 702 (Requirement to comply with safety management plan) of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 “the Act”.

  1. Mr Townsend, Mr Babington and Mr Tredinnick have applied to have their respective complaints struck out on the basis that Stewart Lynn Bell, the complainant was not the Commissioner for Mine Safety and Health when the complaints were made.

The issue

  1. The issue is whether the words used to describe the commencement of Mr Bells appointment as the Commissioner for Mine Safety and Health mean his appointment started at the beginning of 22 April 2013 or the beginning of 23 April 2013.

Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act2004

  1. Each offence is alleged to have been committed on 22 April 2012 at an operating plant 32 kilometres east of Roma at the Santos petroleum lease site. Each of the complaints was sworn by the complainant on 22 April 2013.

  1. Section 837(4) of the Act relevantly provides that a proceeding for an offence must start within the latter of the following periods to end –

(i)          1 year after the commission of…

Continue reading Bell v Townsend and Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bell v Townsend and Ors [2014] QMC 30
Case
[2014] QMC 30
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bell v Townsend and Ors involved a dispute under the industrial law framework concerning workplace health and safety. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the plaintiff, Bell, sought to prosecute the defendants for alleged breaches of workplace health and safety regulations. The defendants challenged the validity of the complaint on the grounds that it was not appropriately filed by the Commissioner, as required by statute. The court was required to determine whether the Commissioner was duly appointed and if the complaint was correctly initiated.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the complaint against the defendants could proceed as it was, or whether it should be struck out due to the alleged procedural irregularity. Specifically, the court needed to establish whether the Commissioner who filed the complaint was validly appointed and authorised to do so under the relevant statutory provisions. If the Commissioner was not properly appointed, the complaint would not meet the necessary legal requirements and could be dismissed.

In its decision, the court examined the statutory requirements for the appointment of a Commissioner and the process for lodging complaints under the workplace health and safety legislation. The court found that the Commissioner who filed the complaint had not been properly appointed according to the statutory framework. Consequently, the court determined that the complaint was not validly filed and struck out the complaints against the defendants. The court further ordered that the plaintiff, Bell, pay the costs incurred by the defendants due to the invalid proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Complaints struck out, Complainant pay the defendants costs.

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.