Edwards v Jenkins - [2017] QCA 298

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Edwards v Jenkins & Ors [2017] QCA 298

PARTIES:

ANDREW DARCY EDWARDS
(applicant)
v
CHAD DOUGLAS JENKINS
(first respondent)
DONALD KYM WILLIAMS
(second respondent)
COLIN LAWRENCE WARD
(third respondent)
WILLIAM RUSSELL TOMLINSON
(fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5757 of 2017
DC No 6 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2017] QDC 135 (Butler SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 October 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Jackson J

ORDERS:
1. The application for leave is dismissed.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the second to fourth respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal to this court to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where the first respondent applied to have the ownership of cattle determined under s 694 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the Magistrates Court at Roma ordered that the cattle be sold and the net proceeds distributed between the applicant and the second to fourth respondents – where the applicant appealed the decision to the District Court – where the District Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal that decision to this Court – whether leave to appeal should be granted

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C J Capper (sol) for the first respondent
D Caruana for the second to fourth respondents

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
QPS Legal Unit for the first respondent
Robert Bax & Associates for the second to fourth respondents

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jackson J and the orders proposed by his Honour.
McMURDO JA: I agree with Jackson J.
JACKSON J: The applicant applies for leave to appeal[1] from orders of the District Court[2] dismissing his application for leave to appeal and appeal from the Magistrates Court to the District Court.[3] Accordingly, the leave sought is from a judgment of the District Court in its appellate jurisdiction.
[1]District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3).
[2]Edwards v Jenkins [2017] QDC 135.
[3]Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld), s 45(1) and (2).
On 10 May 2016, the first respondent applied to have the ownership of 23 cattle determined.[4] The parties to this proceeding were those potentially interested in that question, except for the first respondent, who is a police officer.
[4]Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 694.
On 29 August 2016, the Magistrates Court at Roma decided to refuse[5] an application by the appellant to have the respondents and other police officers as deponents who had sworn affidavits available for cross-examination on the hearing of the application to determine ownership 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 Edwards v Jenkins

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Jenkins [2017] QCA 298
Case: [2017] QCA 298
Decision Date: 5 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Edwards v Jenkins, the primary dispute involved the ownership of certain cattle, which was determined by the Magistrates Court at Roma under section 694 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The court ordered that the cattle be sold and the net proceeds be distributed among the parties involved. The first respondent, dissatisfied with this outcome, appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The first respondent subsequently applied to the Queensland Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the District Court’s decision. The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the first respondent had grounds to appeal the District Court's decision and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

The Court of Appeal examined the procedural requirements for appeals from the District Court and assessed the merits of the first respondent's appeal. The Court noted that appeals from the District Court to the Court of Appeal are by leave of the Court and that such leave is not to be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law. The Court found that the first respondent had not demonstrated a substantial question of law that warranted an appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the District Court's decision was correctly made, and there was no error in law or fact that would justify an appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

As a result of the dismissal, the Court ordered the first respondent to pay the second to fourth respondents' costs of the application for leave to appeal to this Court. These costs were to be assessed on the standard basis, ensuring that the respondents were compensated for the legal expenses incurred due to the unsuccessful application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave is dismissed.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the second to fourth respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal to this court to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	Edwards v Jenkins & Ors [2017] QCA 298
PARTIES:	ANDREW DARCY EDWARDS (applicant) v CHAD DOUGLAS JENKINS (first respondent) DONALD KYM WILLIAMS (second respondent) COLIN LAWRENCE WARD (third respondent) WILLIAM RUSSELL TOMLINSON (fourth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5757 of 2017 DC No 6 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2017] QDC 135 (Butler SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	5 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 October 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Jackson J
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave is dismissed. 2. The applicant is ordered to pay the second to fourth respondent’s costs of the application for leave to appeal to this court to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where the first respondent applied to have the ownership of cattle determined under s 694 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the Magistrates Court at Roma ordered that the cattle be sold and the net proceeds distributed between the applicant and the second to fourth respondents – where the applicant appealed the decision to the District Court – where the District Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal that decision to this Court – whether leave to appeal should be granted
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C J Capper (sol) for the first respondent D Caruana for the second to fourth respondents
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf QPS Legal Unit for the first respondent Robert Bax & Associates for the second to fourth respondents