Deimel v Phelps - [2022] QLC 6

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2022] QLC 6

PARTIES: Wolfgang Deimel
(applicant)

v

Mark Phelps & Christine Phelps
(first respondents)

and

CleanCo Queensland Limited
ABN 85 628 008 159
(second respondent)

FILE NO: MER011-22 (EPM 25185; ML 100140)

PROCEEDING: Application to dismiss proceedings

DELIVERED ON: 6 June 2022

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed 18 March 2022

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers.

MEMBER: PG Stilgoe OAM

ORDERS:
1. The Originating Application is dismissed.

2. Any submissions seeking a costs order in this proceeding must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – whether the applicant had a cause of action – whether there was a lack of procedural fairness – whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process – where the parties previously entered a settlement agreement – where a settlement agreement prevented the applicant from initiating proceedings relating to the subject of previous proceedings – where the applicant’s claim is not in a sensible form – where the applicant is self-represented – where the applicant declined the respondent’s offer to pay for part of legal costs

Land Access Code
Land Court Act s 7A
Land Court Rules 2000 s 3, s 4
Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 s 43
Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 279, s 363(2)(d), s 363(2)(eb)
Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999
Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Regulation 2017
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 16, r 171, r 389A
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 s 10
Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011

Deimel v Phelps [2019] QLC 4, considered
ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry (2015) 36 QLCR 318; [2015] QLAC 4, considered
Giffin v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] QSC 111, applied
Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors v Keys & Ors (2014) 35 QLCR 194; [2014] QLAC 2, cited
Mbuzi v Hall & Anor [2010] QSC 359, applied
Nothdurft & Anor v QGC Pty Limited & Ors [2017] QLC 41, cited
Port of Melbourne v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45, applied
Tipperary Oil & Gas (Australia) Pty Ltd & Shelton [2005] QLRT 13, applied
Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QSC 12, applied

APPEARANCES:
Not applicable

Wolfgang Deimel holds EPM 25185 and ML 100140 which are located on land owned by Mark Phelps and Christine Phelps (the Phelps).

Mr Deimel had to pay the Phelps compensation for the effect of the ML.[1] The parties had to enter into a conduct and compensation agreement (CCA) for the EPM.[2] The Court decided the compensation for both the ML and the EPM.[3]
[1]Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 279 (‘MRA’).
[2]Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act s 43 (‘MERCP Act’).
[3]Deimel v Phelps [2019] QLC 4.

The Phelps…

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 Deimel v Phelps

Details

AGLC: Deimel v Phelps [2022] QLC 6
Case: [2022] QLC 6
Decision Date: 6 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Deimel v Phelps, the applicant, Deimel, sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, Phelps, for matters that were subject to a settlement agreement. This case was before the Court, which had to decide whether the applicant had a cause of action, whether there was a lack of procedural fairness, and whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process. The court examined the nature of the settlement agreement and the terms preventing the applicant from initiating proceedings on the subject matter. Additionally, the court considered the form of the applicant's claim and the fact that the applicant was self-represented and declined an offer to have part of their legal costs paid by the respondent.

The court found that the applicant did not have a cause of action because the settlement agreement expressly precluded proceedings on the subject matter. The court further held that the application was frivolous, given the applicant's insistence on proceeding despite the clear terms of the settlement agreement. Additionally, the court noted that the applicant's claim was not in a sensible form, and the applicant's decision to represent themselves and decline financial assistance from the respondent contributed to the conclusion that the application was an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Originating Application. The court mandated that any submissions seeking a costs order in this proceeding must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to settlement agreements and the consequences of proceeding with claims that are frivolous or vexatious.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Originating Application is dismissed.

2. Any submissions seeking a costs order in this proceeding must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.

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:	Deimel v Phelps & Anor [2022] QLC 6
PARTIES:	Wolfgang Deimel (applicant)
v
Mark Phelps & Christine Phelps (first respondents)
and
CleanCo Queensland Limited ABN 85 628 008 159 (second respondent)
FILE NO:	MER011-22 (EPM 25185; ML 100140)
PROCEEDING:	Application to dismiss proceedings
DELIVERED ON:	6 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed 18 March 2022
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers.
MEMBER:	PG Stilgoe OAM
ORDERS:	1. The Originating Application is dismissed. 2. Any submissions seeking a costs order in this proceeding must be filed and served within 14 days of the publication of these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – whether the applicant had a cause of action – whether there was a lack of procedural fairness – whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process – where the parties previously entered a settlement agreement – where a settlement agreement prevented the applicant from initiating proceedings relating to the subject of previous proceedings – where the applicant’s claim is not in a sensible form – where the applicant is self-represented – where the applicant declined the respondent’s offer to pay for part of legal costs Land Access Code Land Court Act s 7A Land Court Rules 2000 s 3, s 4 Mineral and Energy Resources (Common Provisions) Act 2014 s 43 Mineral Resources Act 1989 s 279, s 363(2)(d), s 363(2)(eb) Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Act 1999 Mining and Quarrying Safety and Health Regulation 2017 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 16, r 171, r 389A Vexatious Proceedings Act 2005 s 10 Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 Deimel v Phelps [2019] QLC 4, considered ERO Georgetown Gold Operations Pty Ltd v Henry (2015) 36 QLCR 318; [2015] QLAC 4, considered Giffin v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] QSC 111, applied Glencore Coal Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors v Keys & Ors (2014) 35 QLCR 194; [2014] QLAC 2, cited Mbuzi v Hall & Anor [2010] QSC 359, applied Nothdurft & Anor v QGC Pty Limited & Ors [2017] QLC 41, cited Port of Melbourne v Anshun (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45, applied Tipperary Oil & Gas (Australia) Pty Ltd & Shelton [2005] QLRT 13, applied Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QSC 12, applied
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable