DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Gibson v Canniffe; Kidd v Baragan; Slabon v Moore [2008] QDC 319
PARTIES:
PATRICK JAMES GIBSON
(Appellant)
and
CHRISTOPHER MERVYN CANNIFFE
(Respondent)
HELEN CARMEL KIDD
(Appellant)
and
DORIN BARAGAN
(Respondent)
MARK DAMIEN SLABON
(Appellant)
and
DANIEL JAMES MOORE
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
D221/08, BD2237/08 and D1308/08
DIVISION:
Crime
PROCEEDING:
Applications
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:
24/12/2008
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
24/11/2008
JUDGE:
Devereaux SC ADCJ
ORDER:
Appeal No D221/08
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The learned Magistrate’s order of dismissal is set aside insofar as it included the refusal of costs.
3. The complaint is remitted to the Magistrates Court for final disposition, including further hearing and determination, in accordance with these reasons, of the question whether costs should be awarded to the appellant and, if so, in what amount.
Appeal No BD2237/08
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The learned Magistrate’s order of dismissal is set aside insofar as it included the refusal of costs.
3. The complaint is remitted to the Magistrates Court for final disposition, including further hearing and determination, in accordance with these reasons, of the question whether costs should be awarded to the appellant and, if so, in what amount.
Appeal No D1308/08
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The learned Magistrate’s order of dismissal is set aside insofar as it included the refusal of costs.
3. The complaint is remitted to the Magistrates Court for final disposition, including further hearing and determination, in accordance with these reasons, of the question whether costs should be awarded to the appellant and, if so, in what amount.
CATCHWORDS:
Justices Act 1886 – costs – where magistrate summarily deals with a complaint of an indictable offence
Appeal and New Trial – Appeal from Summary Trial of an Indictable Offence – Whether Appeal Competent - Justices Act 1886
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Justices Act 1886 s222, s159, s4, s42, s43, s53, s53A, s74, s83A, s54, s57, s59, s70, s71, s104, s108, s113, s141, s142, ss139 – 140, s146A, s147, s145, s146, s148, , s151, s152, s157, s158, s158A, s159
Criminal Code 1899 s335, s340, s552A, s552B, s552I, s552D
Bell v Carter ex parte Bell CA No 25 of 1991
Lamb v Moss (1983) 49 ALR 533
R v Grassby (1988) 15 NSWLR 109
Coco v Shaw [1994] 1 Qd R 469
Coulter v Ryan [2006] QCA 567
Schneider v Curtis [1967] Qd R 300
Owen v Cannavan [1995] QCA 324
Pike v Fancourt; Ex Parte Pike [1980] Qd R 437
Spiller v Scali, ex parte Scali [1966] Q.W.N. 45
Other cases cited in argument
MacPherson v Commissioner of Taxation [1998] QCA 396
Power v Hayward [2007] QSC 26
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Murray v Radford [2003] QCA 91
Power v Lewis [2007] QDC 188
Gram v Torrisi [2001] QDC 263
Rykiert v Maddocks [2003] QDC 529
Durrant v Gardner [2000] QDC 198
Goodwin v Phillips (1908) 7 CLR 1
Baillie v The Home Company Pty Ltd [2000] QDC 036
Leavers V Purcell [1998] QCA…
Continue reading Gibson v Canniffe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gibson v Canniffe; Kidd v Baragan; Slabon v Moore [2008] QDC 319
- Case
- [2008] QDC 319
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the magistrate erred in summarily dismissing Gibson’s application, and whether the magistrate should have awarded Gibson costs. The court found that the magistrate’s dismissal of Gibson’s application was incorrect as it was not appropriate to summarily dismiss an application to have a complaint dismissed. The court further held that the magistrate should have awarded Gibson costs, as the respondents’ application for an order was an abuse of process. The court then had to consider the appropriate costs to award Gibson. The court found that the appropriate costs were those that would be awarded for a successful application to have a complaint dismissed, and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court to determine the amount of costs to award Gibson.
The appeal was allowed, and the magistrate’s order of dismissal was set aside insofar as it included the refusal of costs. The complaint was remitted to the Magistrates Court for final disposition, including further hearing and determination, in accordance with these reasons, of the question whether costs should be awarded to Gibson and, if so, in what amount. The respondents’ cross-appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal No D221/08
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The learned Magistrate’s order of dismissal is set aside insofar as it included the refusal of costs.
3. The complaint is remitted to the Magistrates Court for final disposition, including further hearing and determination, in accordance with these reasons, of the question whether costs should be awarded to the appellant and, if so, in what amount.
Appeal No BD2237/08
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The learned Magistrate’s order of dismissal is set aside insofar as it included the refusal of costs.
3. The complaint is remitted to the Magistrates Court for final disposition, including further hearing and determination, in accordance with these reasons, of the question whether costs should be awarded to the appellant and, if so, in what amount.
Appeal No D1308/08
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The learned Magistrate’s order of dismissal is set aside insofar as it included the refusal of costs.
3. The complaint is remitted to the Magistrates Court for final disposition, including further hearing and determination, in accordance with these reasons, of the question whether costs should be awarded to the appellant and, if so, in what amount.
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.