Brooks v Easther (No 4) - [2017] TASSC 59

[2017] TASSC 59

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Brooks v Easther (No 4) [2017] TASSC 59

PARTIES:  BROOKS, Peter Francis Thomas
  v
  EASTHER, Barry Maxwell

MASON, Norma Lynn
GROOM, The Hon Matthew
as Acting Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania

FILE NO: 2753/2017

DELIVERED ON:  4 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  3, 4 October 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

EDITED VERSION OF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT DELIVERED ORALLY

CATCHWORDS:

Appeal and New Trial – Procedure – Tasmania – Other matters – Application for interlocutory injunction pending determination of appeal – Restraint sought on members of Board of Inquiry - Balance of convenience – Short time before appeal – Injunctive relief granted.

Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority (No 2) [2000] FCA 87; Croney v Nand [1999] 2 Qd R 342; Eastland Technology Australia Pty Ltd v Whisson [2003] WASC 54, 28 WAR 308, considered.
Adamson v Pharmacy Board of Tasmania [2004] TASSC 32, cited.
Aust Dig Appeal and New Trial [399.3]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S B McElwaine SC
             Respondents:  P Turner, J Rudolf
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Shaun McElwaine + Associates
             Respondents:  Solicitor-General

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 59
Number of paragraphs: 15

Serial No 59/2017
File No 2753/2017

PETER FRANCIS THOMAS BROOKS v BARRY MAXWELL EASTHER,
NORMA LYN MASON and The Hon MATTHEW GROOM
as Acting Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

(DELIVERED ORALLY) 4 October 2017

On 11 September 2017, Blow CJ refused an application which sought relief which would have the effect of restraining two members of the Board of Inquiry which had been established to inquire into the governance arrangements and practices of the Glenorchy City Council, from continuing to act in their capacities as members of that Board. His Honour published detailed reasons for that decision: Brooks v Easther (No 3) [2017] TASSC 54.
On 26 September 2017, the appellant instituted an appeal from his Honour's decision. The notice of appeal sets out seven grounds of appeal.
On 29 September 2017, the appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief. The orders sought would, in effect, prevent the respondents, until the determination of the appeal, from delivering their report or disclosing any draft or final version of the report, or any evidence or other material received or obtained by them in the conduct of the Inquiry, to any other person except for those assisting them in the conduct of the Inquiry. The application is opposed by the third respondent. The first and second respondents filed notices of submission in respect of the proceedings at first instance, and this is still the applicable position in relation to their participation in these proceedings.
I record at the outset that as a result of informal approaches made by both parties, the Court has made special arrangements to convene the Full Court urgently to deal with this appeal. This is appropriate because there is clearly a public interest in…

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 Brooks v Easther (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Brooks v Easther (No 4) [2017] TASSC 59
Case: [2017] TASSC 59
Decision Date: 4 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brooks and Easther were the parties involved in this legal dispute. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where Brooks sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent certain actions by Easther and other members of the Board of Inquiry. The application for the injunction was made pending the determination of Brooks' appeal against the Board's findings.

The central legal issue that the court had to decide was whether to grant an interlocutory injunction to Brooks, preventing Easther and the other Board members from acting in certain ways before the appeal was determined. The court needed to consider the balance of convenience and whether it was appropriate to grant such relief, especially given the short time frame before the appeal.

The court found that it was appropriate to grant the injunction. The balance of convenience favoured Brooks, as the potential harm to Brooks if the injunction was not granted outweighed the potential harm to Easther and the Board if the injunction was granted. The court was also mindful of the short time frame before the appeal, which made it even more important to provide some protection to Brooks. As a result, the court granted the injunction, restraining Easther and the other Board members from taking certain actions until the appeal was determined.

The final orders of the court included the grant of an interlocutory injunction, which restrained Easther and the other Board members from taking certain actions pending the determination of Brooks' appeal. The court also directed that the matter be listed for further directions once the appeal was determined. This decision provided Brooks with some protection during the appeal process, while also acknowledging the importance of the short time frame before the appeal.

Orders