SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Clampett v Hill & Ors [2007] QCA 394
PARTIES:
LEONARD WILLIAM CLAMPETT
(applicant/appellant)
v
ROBYN HILL, DIRECTOR OF COURTS, SUPREME AND DISTRICT COURTS
(first respondent)
ANTHONY KWAN GETT
(second respondent)
JUDGE M GRIFFIN
(third respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 8819 of 2007
SC No 7991 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Applications to Strike Out
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
16 November 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12 November 2007
JUDGES:
de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Keane JA
Judgment of the CourtORDER:
1. Respondents’ applications are allowed
2. Appeal dismissed, with costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis
3. Appellant’s cross-application is refusedCATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where application for judicial review brought against District Court Judge who dismissed appeal from Magistrate’s decision, Commonwealth prosecutor, and Director of Courts, Supreme and District Courts – where judicial review application summarily dismissed with costs – whether appeal against dismissal of application should be struck out
PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant appealed to District Court against Magistrates Court conviction, but declined to prosecute appeal – where appellant contended his notice of appeal was not properly sealed, and thus invalid, explaining his failure to prosecute appeal – definition of “seal” – whether court process validly sealed
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – STATES – QUEENSLAND – where the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) was not preceded by a referendum – where appellant argues this was contrary to the requirements of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) as legislation anticipated alterations to the office of Governor – whether authority of Governor affected – whether Queensland courts validly constituted
Australia Act 1986 (UK)
Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld)
Constitution Act 1867 (Qld), s 53
District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 8B, s 39(2)
Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 978
Lohe v Gunter[2003] QSC 150; SC No 11734 of 2002, 16 April 2003, followed
Sharples v Arnison & Ors[2001] QCA 518; Appeal No 2972 of 2001, 23 November 2001, cited
Skyring v Electoral Commission of Qld & Anor [2001] QSC 080; SC No 2028 of 2001, 17 May 2001, followedCOUNSEL:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
G J Handran for the first and third respondents
D C Rangiah for the second respondentSOLICITORS:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Crown Solicitor for the first and third respondents
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the second respondent
THE COURT: The appellant appeals against a judgment of this Court summarily dismissing, with costs, his application purportedly brought under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The respondents seek orders that the appeal be struck out.
The proceeding grew out of the appellant’s conviction, in the Magistrates Court on 9 November 2006, for an offence under the Commonwealth
Continue reading Clampett v Hill
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Clampett v Hill [2007] QCA 394
- Case
- [2007] QCA 394
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal against the dismissal of the judicial review application should be struck out. Additionally, the court needed to address the issue of whether the court process was validly sealed, as Clampett contended that the lack of a proper seal rendered his notice of appeal invalid. Another significant legal issue was whether the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) was validly enacted, as Clampett argued that the Act was passed without a referendum, contrary to the requirements of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld).
The court found that the appeal against the dismissal of the judicial review application should be struck out. The court held that the definition of "seal" in the context of court processes was not met by Clampett's notice of appeal, thus rendering the appeal invalid. Furthermore, the court determined that the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 (Qld) was validly enacted, and therefore the Queensland courts were validly constituted. As a result, the respondents' applications were allowed, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were to be assessed on the indemnity basis. Clampett's cross-application was also refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Respondents’ applications are allowed
2. Appeal dismissed, with costs to be assessed on the indemnity basis
3. Appellant’s cross-application is refused
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.