Flori v Winter [No 3] - [2023] QCA 229

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Flori v Winter & Ors [No 3] [2023] QCA 229

PARTIES:

RICKY ANTHONY FLORI
(appellant)
v
DAVID BRETT WINTER
(first respondent)
PAUL DOYLE
(second respondent)
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8816 of 2023
DC No 1775 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – [2023] QDC 110 (Jarro DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 November 2023

JUDGES:

Morrison and Dalton and Flanagan JJA

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

COMMUNICATIONS LAW – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION – where the appellant sent a letter to the Crime and Misconduct Commission alleging conduct engaged in by two police officers – where the appellant signed the letter in the name of another police officer – where the appellant contended the letter was a public interest disclosure – where the trial judge found that the letter was not a public interest disclosure – where the trial judge accurately summarised the test for determining whether the letter was a public interest disclosure – whether the trial judge wrongly applied the test

COMMUNICATIONS LAW – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION – where the appellant sought damages for three separate reprisals against the first and second respondents who were investigating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant – where the appellant claimed that the actions that constituted the acts of reprisal caused, or attempted to cause, the appellant detriment because the appellant made a public interest disclosure – where the trial judge found that the reprisals could not be proved, as the first and second respondents were not motivated to act as they did because of the alleged public interest disclosure – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondents were not so motivated

Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld), s 14(b)
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld), s 40, s 74
Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (repealed), s 14, s 15, s 16, s 17, s 18, s 19, s 20, sch 6

Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500; [2012] HCA 32, considered
Flori v Winter & Ors [2023] QDC 110, related
Flori v Winter (2019) 3 QR 22; [2019] QCA 281, related
Howard v State of Queensland [2001] 2 Qd R 154; [2000] QCA 223, considered

COUNSEL:

M Black for the appellant
S A McLeod KC, with M R Wilkinson, for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Gnech & Associates for the appellant
Crown Law for the respondents

MORRISON JA: I agree with the reasons of Dalton JA and the order proposed by her Honour.
DALTON JA: Although this was filed as a civil appeal, counsel for Mr Flori accepted at the hearing that he needed leave to appeal pursuant to s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld). In…

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 Flori v Winter [No 3]

Details

AGLC: Flori v Winter [No 3] [2023] QCA 229
Case: [2023] QCA 229
Decision Date: 21 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Flori v Winter [No 3] involved the appellant, who had sent a letter to the Crime and Misconduct Commission, alleging misconduct by two police officers. The appellant signed the letter under the name of another police officer and claimed that the letter constituted a public interest disclosure. The trial judge found that the letter did not meet the criteria for a public interest disclosure and the appellant sought to challenge this decision on appeal. Additionally, the appellant claimed damages for reprisals from the respondents, who were investigating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The trial judge dismissed the claim of reprisals, finding that the respondents were not motivated by the alleged public interest disclosure when taking their actions.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of whistleblower protection and public interest disclosure legislation. The first issue was whether the trial judge correctly determined that the letter was not a public interest disclosure. The second issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondents were not motivated by the appellant's public interest disclosure when they undertook the actions that the appellant claimed constituted reprisals.

The court found that the trial judge had accurately summarised the test for determining whether the letter was a public interest disclosure. The court held that the trial judge correctly found that the letter did not meet the criteria for a public interest disclosure, as it did not relate to any public interest matter. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge did not err in determining that the respondents were not motivated by the alleged public interest disclosure when they undertook the actions that the appellant claimed constituted reprisals. The court held that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the respondents were motivated by the alleged public interest disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legislation and had not erred in his findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs.

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:	Flori v Winter & Ors [No 3] [2023] QCA 229
PARTIES:	RICKY ANTHONY FLORI (appellant) v DAVID BRETT WINTER (first respondent) PAUL DOYLE (second respondent) STATE OF QUEENSLAND (third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 8816 of 2023 DC No 1775 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – [2023] QDC 110 (Jarro DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	21 November 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 November 2023
JUDGES:	Morrison and Dalton and Flanagan JJA
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	COMMUNICATIONS LAW – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION – where the appellant sent a letter to the Crime and Misconduct Commission alleging conduct engaged in by two police officers – where the appellant signed the letter in the name of another police officer – where the appellant contended the letter was a public interest disclosure – where the trial judge found that the letter was not a public interest disclosure – where the trial judge accurately summarised the test for determining whether the letter was a public interest disclosure – whether the trial judge wrongly applied the test COMMUNICATIONS LAW – WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION – where the appellant sought damages for three separate reprisals against the first and second respondents who were investigating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant – where the appellant claimed that the actions that constituted the acts of reprisal caused, or attempted to cause, the appellant detriment because the appellant made a public interest disclosure – where the trial judge found that the reprisals could not be proved, as the first and second respondents were not motivated to act as they did because of the alleged public interest disclosure – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the respondents were not so motivated Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 (Qld), s 14(b) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld), s 40, s 74 Whistleblowers Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (repealed), s 14, s 15, s 16, s 17, s 18, s 19, s 20, sch 6 Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500; [2012] HCA 32, considered Flori v Winter & Ors [2023] QDC 110, related Flori v Winter (2019) 3 QR 22; [2019] QCA 281, related Howard v State of Queensland [2001] 2 Qd R 154; [2000] QCA 223, considered
COUNSEL:	M Black for the appellant S A McLeod KC, with M R Wilkinson, for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Gnech & Associates for the appellant Crown Law for the respondents