Globex Shipping S.A. v Magistrate Mack (No 2) - [2018] QSC 172

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Globex Shipping S.A. v Magistrate Mack & Anor (No 2) [2018] QSC 172

PARTIES:

GLOBEX SHIPPING S.A.

(applicant)

v
MAGISTRATE MACK

(first respondent)
MATTHEW JOSEPH SLATCHER
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

No 8772 of 2017

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application on the papers

DELIVERED ON:

3 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Application on the papers

JUDGE:

Davis J

ORDER:

The second respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where the applicant sought review of a magistrate’s decision – where submissions made on behalf of the second respondent led the magistrate to fall into error – where the proceedings were criminal proceedings but the review application was a civil application – whether costs should be awarded.

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 49
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 54, s 113A
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (Cth) s 9(1B), s 29A

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld) r 681

Anghel v Minister for Transport (No 2) [1995] 2 Qd R 454, not applied
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Barnes & Anor [2014] QCA 152, followed
Foster v Shaddock & Ors [2016] QCA 163, cited

Globex Shipping S.A. v Magistrate Mack & Anor [2018] QSC 138

SOLICITORS:

Thynne & Macartney for the applicant

Crown Solicitor for the first respondent
Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions for the second respondent

The second respondent swore a complaint under the Justices Act 1886 against the applicant alleging that the applicant had committed offences against s 9(1B) of the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (Cth) (“The POTSAct”). The second respondent sought to effect service of the summons which issued pursuant to the complaint by delivering the summons to Thynne & Macartney (a firm of solicitors) and a shipping agent, Monson Agencies (Monson).
The applicant brought an application to the Magistrates Court in Townsville seeking rulings to the effect that it had not been effectively served with the summons, and that the Magistrates Court therefore had no power to hear the complaint. If the Magistrates Court did have power to hear the complaint, the court would conduct an examination of witnesses, as the offences are indictable.[1] The first respondent, a magistrate, decided the application against the applicant, who then sought judicial review of that decision.
[1] Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 104 and following.
Consistently with the principles explained in R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman[2], the first respondent did not appear on the application for judicial review. I heard the application on 1 June 2018 and on 14 June 2018 I made declarations, the practical effect of which was to set aside the decision of the first respondent.[3]
[2] (1980) 144 CLR 13 at 35–36.
[3] Globex Shipping S.A. v Magistrate Mack &…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Globex Shipping S.A. v Magistrate Mack (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] QSC 172
Decision Date: 3 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Globex Shipping S.A. sought a review of a decision made by Magistrate Mack in criminal proceedings. The nature of the dispute was the propriety of the costs awarded in the civil review application that followed the criminal proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court. The court was tasked with determining whether costs should be awarded in the review application, which was a civil proceeding, despite the underlying criminal nature of the case. The key issue was whether the submissions made by the second respondent led the magistrate to an error in the criminal proceedings, thereby affecting the outcome of the civil review application.

The court considered the submissions made by the second respondent and their impact on the magistrate's decision. It was determined that these submissions did indeed lead the magistrate to an error. This error, in turn, affected the outcome of the civil review application. The court acknowledged that while the review application was civil in nature, the underlying error stemmed from the criminal proceedings. The court held that it had the discretion to award costs in such circumstances, particularly where the submissions of a party had led to an error that had significant consequences. This discretion was exercised in favour of the applicant, resulting in an award of costs against the second respondent.

The court ordered that the second respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application on the standard basis. This decision highlights the court's ability to award costs in civil review applications, even when the underlying proceedings are criminal, provided that the error in the original proceedings significantly impacts the review application. The ruling underscores the importance of careful submissions in both criminal and civil proceedings, as errors can have broader implications.

Orders

Orders of the court

The second respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application 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:	Globex Shipping S.A. v Magistrate Mack & Anor (No 2) [2018] QSC 172
PARTIES:	GLOBEX SHIPPING S.A. (applicant) v MAGISTRATE MACK (first respondent) MATTHEW JOSEPH SLATCHER (second respondent)
FILE NO:	No 8772 of 2017
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application on the papers
DELIVERED ON:	3 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Application on the papers
JUDGE:	Davis J
ORDER:	The second respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COSTS – GENERAL MATTERS – POWER TO AWARD GENERALLY – GENERALLY – where the applicant sought review of a magistrate’s decision – where submissions made on behalf of the second respondent led the magistrate to fall into error – where the proceedings were criminal proceedings but the review application was a civil application – whether costs should be awarded. Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) s 49 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 54, s 113A Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (Cth) s 9(1B), s 29A Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld) r 681 Anghel v Minister for Transport (No 2) [1995] 2 Qd R 454, not applied Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Barnes & Anor [2014] QCA 152, followed Foster v Shaddock & Ors [2016] QCA 163, cited Globex Shipping S.A. v Magistrate Mack & Anor [2018] QSC 138
SOLICITORS:	Thynne & Macartney for the applicant Crown Solicitor for the first respondent Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions for the second respondent