FW: Young v Assistant Commissioner Dawson

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Young v Assistant Commissioner Dawson [2020] QCATA 160

160PARTIES:

LUCAS YOUNG

(applicant/appellant)

v

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAWSON

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO:

APL044-19

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

OCR285-17

MATTER TYPE:

Appeals

DELIVERED ON:

27 November 2020

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2020

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Howard, Presiding Member
Member Browne

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal granted on Grounds 2 and 4.

2.   Appeal allowed on Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4.

3.   Order 1 of the Tribunal’s decision of 24 January 2019 that Matters 1(iii) and 1(vii) is confirmed is set aside and the following decision is substituted:

That part of the decision made by Assistant Commissioner Alastair Dawson on 1 December 2017 to substantiate a finding of misconduct in Matters 1(iii) and 1(vii) is set aside on the basis that the allegations are not proven to the required standard.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – WRONG PRINCIPLE – GENERALLY – where proceeding is a review of disciplinary charges - whether wrong principle applied – whether tribunal  misdirected itself as to the tribunal’s function in a review proceeding – whether tribunal misdirected itself by addressing wrong question or failing to address submission – whether tribunal acted upon a wrong principle or allowed an irrelevant matter to guide or affect decision – where allegation or charge relates to a pattern of conduct – whether allegation or charge is vague, insufficiently particularised or bad at law – obligation of disciplinary authority to give sufficient particulars

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT – PROOF AND EVIDENCE – where error of law in applying wrong principle – where decision made against uncontradicted evidence – whether decision made contrary to weight of evidence – whether tribunal failed to make required finding of fact–  where evidence is vague and indefinite or contains broad assertions or is limited or lacks particulars – whether charge or allegation which relates to a pattern of conduct is established on the evidence – whether evidence of a pattern of conduct fails to meet Briginshaw standard – whether evidence of a pattern of conduct comprises inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences – where different judgement to be given on rehearing

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) 147(3)(b)

Berenyi v Maynard [215] QSC 370

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd [1986] 2 Qd R 388
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577
Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294
Quilter v Mapleson (1882) 9 QBD 672
Victorian Stevedoring & General Contracting Co Pty Ltd v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73

Young v Assistant Commissioner of Police Dawson [2019] QCAT 8

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Black M,…