Colin Candy v Ian McPhail

COLIN CANDY
v
IAN MCPHAIL & ANOR
[2013] HCASL 176
B35/2013

This is an application for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal of Queensland (Holmes and White JJA and Philippides J) dismissing an appeal from an unsuccessful application for judicial review of a decision made by the first respondent. That decision, made in March 2001, was to refuse to grant the applicant a rescue permit[1] allowing him to keep a red kangaroo. The kangaroo is dead.
[1]Nature Conservation Regulation 1994 (Q), s 5.
The kangaroo had been removed from the applicant's home by officers of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service in March 2001. The removal gave rise to proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland for trespass[2]. An issue for determination in those proceedings was whether the red kangaroo was a "protected animal" under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Q). Douglas J held that it was. That conclusion was upheld in the Court of Appeal[3]. Special leave to appeal from that determination was refused[4].
[2]Candy v Thompson [2005] QSC 111.
[3]Candy v Thompson [2005] Aust Torts Reports 81-809.
[4]Candy v Thompson [2006] HCATrans 220.
The application for judicial review was based on a contention that the kangaroo was not a protected animal. In an ex tempore judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Queensland (Wilson J) on 12 November 2012 the application was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal rejected the contention that its earlier decision determining the status of the red kangaroo was wrong. It dismissed the appeal.
Nothing in the applicant's prolix grounds or written case identify an arguable basis for challenging the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
3 December 2013 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Colin Candy, the applicant, sought special leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal of Queensland's decision, which dismissed his appeal from an unsuccessful application for judicial review. The review was of a decision made by Ian McPhail, the first respondent, in March 2001, to refuse the granting of a rescue permit to the applicant. This permit would have allowed the applicant to keep a red kangaroo, which had been removed from his home by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. The kangaroo has since died. The applicant's application for judicial review was based on the contention that the red kangaroo was not a "protected animal" under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Q).

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal needed to decide were whether the kangaroo was a protected animal under the Act and if the earlier decisions made by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Queensland were correct. The Court of Appeal rejected the contention that its earlier decision was wrong and dismissed the appeal. The Court had to determine if there was an arguable basis for challenging the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court concluded that there was no arguable basis for challenging the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The kangaroo's status as a protected animal under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Q) was upheld, and the Court of Appeal's decision was affirmed. The application for judicial review was unsuccessful, and the applicant was not granted a rescue permit to keep the red kangaroo.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established