Cross v Peebles - [2013] QCA 26

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cross & Ors v Peebles [2013] QCA 26

PARTIES:

CROSS, Kellie Lee-Anne
CROSS, Ronald Malcolm
CROSS COUNTRY REALTY PTY LTD
(applicants)
v
DAVID LINDSAY PEEBLES
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 98 of 2012
CA No 99 of 2012
CA No 100 of 2012
DC No 146 of 2011
DC No 148 of 2011
DC No 150 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

26 February 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 October 2012

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.Grant leave to appeal.

2.Appeal dismissed.

3. Affirm the orders and direction made on 27 March 2012 in the District Court at Southport.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant corporation held a property agents and motor dealers license (real estate agent) issued pursuant to Chapter 2 Part 6 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) – where the appellant corporation was a residential property agent within the meaning of that Act – where the other appellants were executive officers of the appellant corporation – where the appellant corporation failed to identify the recipient selling agent and developer consultant by name – where the appellant corporation described the benefit to be received by the developer consultant in a formulaic manner rather than a precise dollar figure – where the appellant corporation and the executive officers of said corporation were charged with offences under s 138(1)(c) and s 591(2) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) – where the trial magistrate upheld a no case application and made orders dismissing the complaints requiring the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs – where the respondent appealed to the District Court – where the District Court ordered the appeals be allowed and the orders below set aside, and remitted the matter back to the Magistrates Court – whether the District Court Judge erred in allowing the appeal

Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), s 138(1)(c), s 591(2)
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118

Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1340, cited
Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 80, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicants
M D Hinson SC, with A C Freeman, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicants
Crown Law for the respondent

JA:FRASER I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.

GOTTERSON JA: At all times material to these proceedings Cross Country Realty Pty Ltd (“the corporation”) held a property agents and motor dealers licence (real estate agent) which had been issued pursuant to Chapter 2 Part 6 of…

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.

Continue reading Cross v Peebles

Details

AGLC: Cross & Ors v Peebles [2013] QCA 26
Case: [2013] QCA 26
Decision Date: 26 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Cross v Peebles involved the appellant corporation, which held a property agents and motor dealers license, and its executive officers. The corporation and its officers were charged under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld). The charges stemmed from the corporation's failure to identify the recipient selling agent and developer consultant by name and its use of a formulaic description for the benefit to be received by the developer consultant instead of a precise dollar figure. The trial magistrate dismissed the complaints against the appellants and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs. The respondent appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeals and remitted the matter back to the Magistrates Court. The issue before the court was whether the District Court Judge erred in allowing the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence and whether the District Court Judge erred in allowing the appeal. The court had to consider the evidence presented at the trial and determine whether the verdict was justified. The court also had to assess whether the District Court Judge made any errors in law that would warrant the appeal being allowed. The court had to balance the evidence and the law to make its decision.

The court found that the District Court Judge did not err in allowing the appeal. The court held that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court also found that the District Court Judge did not make any errors in law that would warrant the appeal being allowed. The court held that the appeals should be dismissed, and the orders and direction made on 27 March 2012 in the District Court at Southport should be affirmed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the District Court Judge did not err in allowing the appeal.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal, dismiss the appeal, and affirm the orders and direction made on 27 March 2012 in the District Court at Southport. The court held that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence and that the District Court Judge did not err in allowing the appeal. The court found that the appeals should be dismissed, and the orders and direction made on 27 March 2012 in the District Court at Southport should be affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Grant leave to appeal.

2.Appeal dismissed.

3. Affirm the orders and direction made on 27 March 2012 in the District Court at Southport.

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:	Cross & Ors v Peebles [2013] QCA 26
PARTIES:	CROSS, Kellie Lee-Anne CROSS, Ronald Malcolm CROSS COUNTRY REALTY PTY LTD (applicants) v DAVID LINDSAY PEEBLES (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 98 of 2012 CA No 99 of 2012 CA No 100 of 2012 DC No 146 of 2011 DC No 148 of 2011 DC No 150 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	26 February 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 October 2012
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.Grant leave to appeal. 2.Appeal dismissed. 3. Affirm the orders and direction made on 27 March 2012 in the District Court at Southport.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant corporation held a property agents and motor dealers license (real estate agent) issued pursuant to Chapter 2 Part 6 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) – where the appellant corporation was a residential property agent within the meaning of that Act – where the other appellants were executive officers of the appellant corporation – where the appellant corporation failed to identify the recipient selling agent and developer consultant by name – where the appellant corporation described the benefit to be received by the developer consultant in a formulaic manner rather than a precise dollar figure – where the appellant corporation and the executive officers of said corporation were charged with offences under s 138(1)(c) and s 591(2) of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) – where the trial magistrate upheld a no case application and made orders dismissing the complaints requiring the respondent to pay the appellants’ costs – where the respondent appealed to the District Court – where the District Court ordered the appeals be allowed and the orders below set aside, and remitted the matter back to the Magistrates Court – whether the District Court Judge erred in allowing the appeal Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld), s 138(1)(c), s 591(2) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118 Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1340, cited Cross v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 80, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the applicants M D Hinson SC, with A C Freeman, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicants Crown Law for the respondent