SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Fuller v Toms & Ors [2010] QCA 283
PARTIES:
DONALD FULLER
(defendant/appellant)
v
STEPHEN TOMS
(plaintiff/respondent)
PHILLIP TOYNE
(plaintiff/ respondent)
CHARLES BRIGHT
(plaintiff/respondent)
BRETT HEADING
(plaintiff/respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 309 of 2010
SC No 3234 of 2009DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURTS:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED ON:
15 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
30 July 2010
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
Appeal dismissed with costs.1.
Applications for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.2.
Application to lodge further submissions and for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.3.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – FUNCTIONS OF AN APPELLATE COURT – SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR MATTER OF PROCEDURE – MATTERS OF PROCEDURE – GENERALLY – where the respondents filed a claim against the appellant for defamation and the appellant filed three pleadings in response – where the pleadings were stuck out by the primary judge due to substantial deficiencies and the appellant was granted leave to file a further amended defence and counterclaim – where the further pleading was struck out and the appellant was ordered to obtain leave before filing any further pleadings – where the respondents filed a notice of discontinuance and the appellant filed an application for leave to file an amended defence and counterclaim – where the primary judge refused the appellant’s application, granted the respondents leave to discontinue, and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents’ costs – where the appellant appealed against those orders – whether the primary judge erred in determining that the appellant’s pleadings were substantially deficient and inconsistent with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether the primary judge erred in striking out the appellant’s pleadings and refusing his application for leave – whether the primary judge erred in granting the respondents leave to discontinue – whether the appellant suffered prejudice, injustice or was deprived of substantive rights due to the discontinuance – whether the grounds relied on by the appellant would justify interference with the orders of the primary judge
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RIGHT OF APPEAL – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FOR BIAS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS – where the appellant made an application that the primary judge disqualify himself due to apprehended bias – whether the primary judge erred in refusing the application – whether a fair minded observer might reasonably apprehend that the primary judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided – whether in expressing preliminary views the primary judge gave rise to an apprehension of bias
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER MATTERS –…
Continue reading Fuller v Toms
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Fuller v Toms [2010] QCA 283
- Case
- [2010] QCA 283
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues were whether the primary judge erred in determining that Fuller's pleadings were substantially deficient, in striking out his pleadings and refusing his application for leave, in granting the respondents leave to discontinue, and in not making orders for disclosure of documents. The court also considered whether Fuller suffered prejudice, injustice, or was deprived of substantive rights due to the discontinuance, and whether the costs orders should be set aside. Additionally, the court examined whether the primary judge erred in refusing Fuller's application to disqualify himself due to apprehended bias.
The court held that the primary judge did not err in striking out Fuller's pleadings and refusing his application for leave. The pleadings contained substantial deficiencies and were inconsistent with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The primary judge did not err in granting the respondents leave to discontinue, as Fuller did not suffer prejudice, injustice, or a deprivation of substantive rights. The court also found that the primary judge did not err in refusing Fuller's application for disqualification due to apprehended bias, as there was no reasonable apprehension that the primary judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues. The costs orders were upheld, and the applications for leave to adduce fresh evidence were refused.
The court dismissed Fuller's appeal with costs and refused his applications to adduce fresh evidence and lodge further submissions.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.1.
Applications for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.2.
Application to lodge further submissions and for leave to adduce fresh evidence refused.3.
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.