Cooney v. Holden - [2007] QSC 53

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cooney v Holden [2007] QSC 53

PARTIES:

GRANT COONEY and FAYE COONEY
(applicants)
v
COLIN HOLDEN as CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
QUEENSLAND RURAL ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BS4921 of 2006

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for statutory order of review

DELIVERED ON:

15 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2006

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) – where applicants claim respondent should have given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard on critical adverse material – whether decision made accorded with the rules of procedural fairness

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) –where the respondent did not take into account the applicants’ explanation for a change in assessment of the viability of the applicants’ farm business – whether respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations

Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 27B
Judicial Review Act 1991, s 32
Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994, s 3, s 8, s 11, s 12, s13A, s 13B, s 13C
Vegetation Management Act 1999
Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004

Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, considered
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, considered
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, considered

COUNSEL:

MO Plunkett and J Fenton for the applicants
PG Bickford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crowley Greenhalgh for the applicants
McCullough Robertson for the respondent

MULLINS J: The applicants seek a review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (“JRA”) of the decision of the respondent Mr Colin Holden, the chief executive officer of the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority (“QRAA”), declining an application for assistance under the Queensland Vegetation Management Framework, Financial Assistance for Farm Businesses, Exit Assistance Scheme (“the exit assistance scheme”) which is an approved assistance scheme under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (“the Act”).

Relevant legislation

The QRAA is a body corporate which represents the State established under the Act to deliver financial and other assistance and incentives primarily targeted at fostering the development of a more productive and sustainable rural and regional sector by giving assistance to rural or regional producers who have long term viability, but it is also an object of the Act that the QRAA will help persons leave rural or regional production: s 3 of the Act. Under s 8(1) of the Act, the QRAA’s primary function is specified as putting approved assistance…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cooney v. Holden and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] QSC 53
Decision Date: 15 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cooney and another (the "applicants") sought judicial review of a decision made by Holden (the "respondent") to refuse their application for exit assistance under the scheme approved by the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld). The applicants claimed that the respondent should have afforded them a reasonable opportunity to be heard on critical adverse material and that the decision was made without proper regard to procedural fairness. Additionally, they argued that the respondent failed to take into account their explanation for a change in the assessment of the viability of their farm business and instead took into account irrelevant considerations.

The court considered whether the respondent breached the rules of procedural fairness by not providing the applicants with an opportunity to respond to critical adverse material and whether the respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations in making the decision. The court assessed the decision against the principles of natural justice and the scope of relevant and irrelevant considerations under the Act. The applicants needed to demonstrate that the decision-making process was flawed in a way that affected the outcome.

The court found that the respondent did not breach the rules of procedural fairness, as the applicants were given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the critical adverse material. The court also held that the respondent did not fail to take into account relevant considerations or take into account irrelevant considerations. The decision was well within the scope of the statutory powers, and the applicants' arguments did not establish a ground for judicial review.

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court found no merit in the applicants' claims and upheld the respondent's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.

CITATION:	Cooney v Holden [2007] QSC 53
PARTIES:	GRANT COONEY and FAYE COONEY (applicants) v COLIN HOLDEN as CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, QUEENSLAND RURAL ADJUSTMENT AUTHORITY (respondent)
FILE NO:	BS4921 of 2006
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for statutory order of review
DELIVERED ON:	15 March 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 December 2006
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS – GENERALLY – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) – where applicants claim respondent should have given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard on critical adverse material – whether decision made accorded with the rules of procedural fairness ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – GROUNDS OF REVIEW – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS – where the applicants seek judicial review of the respondent’s decision to refuse the applicants’ application for exit assistance under the scheme approved under the Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994 (Qld) –where the respondent did not take into account the applicants’ explanation for a change in assessment of the viability of the applicants’ farm business – whether respondent failed to take into account relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 27B Judicial Review Act 1991, s 32 Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994, s 3, s 8, s 11, s 12, s13A, s 13B, s 13C Vegetation Management Act 1999 Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004 Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576, considered Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, considered Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24, considered
COUNSEL:	MO Plunkett and J Fenton for the applicants PG Bickford for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crowley Greenhalgh for the applicants McCullough Robertson for the respondent