Davis v Ryan, State Coroner

Case [2019] QCA 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Davis v Ryan, State Coroner [2019] QCA 282

PARTIES:

STEPHEN JOHN DAVIS
(applicant)
v
TERRY RYAN, STATE CORONER
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3780 of 2019
DC No 36 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Civil)
Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Townsville (Lynham DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2019

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Gotterson JA and Flanagan J

ORDERS:

1.   The time for filing of the application for leave to appeal is extended to 8 April 2019.

2.   The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN GRANTED – where the application for leave to appeal was filed out of time – where the decision the subject of the application was forwarded to the applicant at the wrong email address – where the applicant acted promptly to file his application once he received the judgment – whether an extension of time should be granted for the application for leave to appeal

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied to the District Court for an order to hold an inquest into the death of his late wife – where the District Court judge was not satisfied under s 30(8) of the Coroners Act 2003 that holding an inquest would be in the public interest, and dismissed the application – where the applicant sought leave to appeal from the District Court judge’s decision – whether leave is necessary in order to correct a substantial injustice – whether there is a reasonable argument that the District Court judge committed House v The King error in forming the discretionary judgment that he was not satisfied that holding an inquest was in the public interest – whether the District Court judge misconstrued the term “public interest” in s 30(8) – whether the District Court judge took into account irrelevant considerations by having regard to the State Coroner’s views as to the utility of an inquest and the availability of resources, and to opinion evidence from doctors – whether the District Court judge failed to have regard to a relevant consideration as to an alleged widespread dangerous prescribing practice or simply did not make the finding of fact the applicant sought

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 21, s 22
Coroners Act 2003 (Qld), s 3, s 8, 11(2), s 27, s 28, s 30, s 46
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) 2009 (Qld), s 39, s 41

Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Qd R 235; [2000] QCA 501, cited
Clancy v West [1996] 2 VR 647; [1995] VICSC 207, considered
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations…

Continue reading Davis v Ryan, State Coroner

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Davis v Ryan, State Coroner [2019] QCA 282
Case
[2019] QCA 282
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the applicant, Davis, seeking leave to appeal a decision by the State Coroner, Ryan, which dismissed his application for an inquest into the death of his late wife. The legal issues before the court included whether an extension of time should be granted for filing the application for leave to appeal, and if leave to appeal was necessary to correct a substantial injustice. The court also examined whether the District Court judge erred in dismissing the application for an inquest under section 30(8) of the Coroners Act 2003, specifically whether the judge misconstrued the term “public interest,” took into account irrelevant considerations, or failed to consider relevant factors.

The court found that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was indeed filed out of time, as the decision was forwarded to the applicant at the wrong email address. However, the applicant acted promptly to file his application once he received the judgment. The court exercised its discretion to grant an extension of time for filing the application for leave to appeal, accepting that the delay was due to no fault of the applicant. Regarding the appeal itself, the court held that leave was not necessary to correct a substantial injustice. The court concluded that there was no reasonable argument that the District Court judge committed a House v The King error, as the discretionary judgment that holding an inquest was not in the public interest was properly formed. The court also found that the District Court judge did not misconstrue the term “public interest,” nor did he take into account irrelevant considerations. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In summary, the court granted an extension of time for the application for leave to appeal, but ultimately refused the application for leave to appeal itself. The court found that the decision of the District Court judge was properly made and that there was no substantial injustice warranting an appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for filing of the application for leave to appeal is extended to 8 April 2019.

2. The application for leave to appeal 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.