Bucknell v Parker

Case [2018] QDC 36

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bucknell v Parker & Anor [2018] QDC 36

PARTIES:

PETER BUCKNELL

(Appellant)

v

NEIL PARKER

( First Respondent)

and

QUEENSLAND PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICES

(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 274/16, Magistrate 334/15

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Civil Appeal 

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

16 March 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2017

JUDGE:

Lynham DCJ

ORDERS: 

1.     The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2.   The appellant is to pay the first and second respondents costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – Appeal to the District Court from the Magistrates Court – whether leave to appeal required – whether leave be granted

LEGISLATION:

Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld), s 45, 47

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 5, 293, 515, 516, 681, 703

CASES:

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Bernstrom v National Australia Bank Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 469
Bolton Properties Pty Ltd v JK Investments (Australia) Pty Ltd [2009] 2 Qd R 202
Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar [2009] 75 NSWLR 649
Cassatone Nominees P/L v Queenslandwide House & Building Reports P/L & Ors [2008] QCA 102
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
Colgate-Palmolive v Cussons Pty Ltd (1993) 118 ALR 248
Corbiere & Anor v Dulley & Ors (No 2) [2017] QSC 83
Credit Corp Services Pty Ltd v Tang [2017] QDC 247
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at 619
Dupois v Queensland Television Ltd & Ors [2015] QCA 160
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Fritz v O’Brien [2011] QCA 181
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan & Ors (2002) 211 CLR 540
Macedon Ranges Shire Council v Thompson [2009] VSCA 209
Maguire v Racing Queensland Limited [2012] QSC 219
Moorabool Shire Council v Taitapanui (2006) 14 VR 55
Ogawa v University of Melbourne No 2 [2004] FCA 1275
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180
Pipeworks Australia v Betcop Pty Ltd v  The Watts Family Trust & Ors [2015] QSC 284
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
Raging Thunder Pty Ltd & Anor v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2012] QSC 329
Ramzy v Body Corporate for GC3 CTS38396 & Anor [2012] QDC 397
RB Lease Pty Ltd v Heron [2013] QCA 181 
Shaw v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Rablin v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2016] QCA 275
South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd; Mortensen v Laing [1992] 2 NZLR 282
Tey v Optima Financial Group Pty Ltd [2012] WASCA 192
The Public Trustee of Queensland (as Litigation Guardian for ADF) v Ban [2011] QSC 380
Warren v Combes (1979) 142 CLR 531
Weipa Hire Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2015]…

Continue reading Bucknell v Parker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bucknell v Parker [2018] QDC 36
Case
[2018] QDC 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Bucknell v Parker was brought by the appellant against the first and second respondents before the District Court, following a decision from the Magistrates Court. The dispute centred on the appellant's challenge to the Magistrates Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal its decision. The crux of the matter was whether the District Court should grant leave for the appellant to appeal the Magistrates Court's ruling and, if so, whether the appeal should proceed.

The primary legal issue before the District Court was whether it had the discretion to grant leave to appeal when the Magistrates Court had already refused such leave. The court also had to consider whether, in the event it did have the discretion, it should exercise that discretion to permit the appeal to proceed. These questions involved an interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the hierarchy of courts and the process for appeals.

The District Court found that it did not have the authority to grant leave to appeal when the Magistrates Court had already denied it. The court held that the statutory framework did not provide for a second opportunity to seek leave in the District Court once it had been refused by the Magistrates Court. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Furthermore, the court ordered the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal to the first and second respondents, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant is to pay the first and second respondents costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.