Brose v Baluskas (No 8)

Case [2020] QDC 98

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brose v Baluskas & Ors (No 8) [2020] QDC 98

PARTIES:

TRACEY ANN BROSE
(Plaintiff)

v

DONNA JOY BALUSKAS
(First Defendant)

and

MIGUEL BALUSKAS
(Second Defendant)

and

TRUDIE ARNOLD
(Third Defendant)

and

IAN MARTIN
(Fourth Defendant)

and

KERRI ERVIN
(Fifth Defendant)

and

LAURA LAWSON

(Sixth Defendant)

and

CHARMAINE PROUDLOCK
(Seventh Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D148 of 2016

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATES:

13 December 2019 and 10 February 2020

JUDGE:

Muir DCJ

ORDER:

It is ordered that:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   The parties have until 4.00pm Friday 5 June 2020 to provide written submissions as to costs (of no more than 2 pages) to be emailed to my Associate within that time.  Otherwise the cost order will be: that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

DISTRICT COURT– POWERS OF COURT – EXPRESS POWERS – IMPLIED POWERS – where applicant is a non-party to proceedings – where applicant sought to inspect and copy exhibits tendered in a civil trial under rules 980 and 981 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules– whether the court has express power to permit a non-party to inspect or copy exhibits – whether rules 980 and 981 relate to exhibits – whether an implied power is called for in the circumstances of the case – whether non-party access to exhibits is necessary in the circumstances of the case

CIVIL PROCEDURE – SEARCH AND COPY – OPEN JUSTICE – ACCESS TO EXHIBITS – where applicant is a journalist seeking to inspect and copy exhibits tendered in a civil trial – where judgment has since been delivered – where there has been significant media coverage of the proceedings – whether rules 980 and 981 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules relate to exhibits – whether the court has power to permit a non-party to inspect or copy exhibits – whether non-party access to exhibits is necessary in the circumstances of the case

LEGISLATION:

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) – Schedule 1.

Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 56, 56A, 57.

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) ss 68, 69.

Evidence Act1977 (Qld) s133.

Federal Court Rules2011 (Cth) r 2.32.

Supreme Court of Queensland Act1991 (Qld) ss 85, Schedule 1 s27(g).

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – rr 981, 980, 975B, 984A.

CASES:

ACCC v Abb Transmission and Distribution [2002] FCA 609.

Attorney-General v Walker (1849) 3 Ex 242.

Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Higgs [2006] QDC 81.

Basha v Basha [2010] QCA 123.

British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Cowell (2003) 8 VR 571.

Brose v Baluskas & Ors (No 6) [2020] QDC 15.

Caltabiano v Electoral Commission of Queensland & Anor (No.3) [2009] QSC 186.

Caroona Coal Action Group Inc v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd (No 4) [2010] NSWLEC 91.

Champion v Fay [1983] 2 Qd R 416.

Continue reading Brose v Baluskas (No 8)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brose v Baluskas (No 8) [2020] QDC 98
Case
[2020] QDC 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brose v Baluskas (No 8) involved a non-party, a journalist, seeking to inspect and copy exhibits tendered in a civil trial between the parties Brose and Baluskas. The application was made to the District Court, and the journalist sought to inspect and copy the exhibits under rules 980 and 981 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court had to decide whether it had the express power to permit a non-party to inspect or copy exhibits, and whether the rules related to exhibits. The court also had to consider whether an implied power was required in the circumstances of the case, and whether non-party access to exhibits was necessary. The journalist argued that access to the exhibits was necessary for the public interest, given the significant media coverage of the proceedings. The court considered these issues in the context of the open justice principle and the need for transparency in legal proceedings.

The court found that the express powers of the court under the rules did not extend to permitting a non-party to inspect or copy exhibits, and that rules 980 and 981 did not relate to exhibits. The court also found that an implied power was not required in the circumstances of the case, and that non-party access to exhibits was not necessary. The court considered that the open justice principle was not compromised by the refusal of the application, as the exhibits had already been subject to judicial scrutiny and the proceedings had been widely reported in the media. The court also found that the journalist's motivation for seeking access to the exhibits was not purely in the public interest, but also for commercial gain. The court concluded that the application was an abuse of process and an unnecessary intrusion into the judicial process.

The court dismissed the application and ordered that the parties provide written submissions as to costs within a specified timeframe. The court noted that if the parties did not provide the submissions, the applicant would be ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application. This case highlights the importance of understanding the express and implied powers of the court, as well as the open justice principle, when making applications to inspect or copy exhibits in legal proceedings. It also underscores the need for non-parties to consider the potential consequences of making such applications, particularly where there is a commercial or other non-public interest motivation.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is ordered that:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The parties have until 4.00pm Friday 5 June 2020 to provide written submissions as to costs (of no more than 2 pages) to be emailed to my Associate within that time. Otherwise the cost order will be: that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

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.