Goodchild v LSC

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Goodchild v LSC [2017] QSC 117

PARTIES:

RICKY WAYNE GOODCHILD

(applicant)

v

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS10261/16, BS11023/16 & BS11535/16

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Applications to dismiss

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 February 2017

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

In each of the originating applications the order of the court is that:

1.    The originating application is dismissed.

2.    The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding. 

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DECISIONS TO WHICH JUDICIAL REVIEW LEGISLATION APPLIES – DECISIONS UNDER AN ENACTMENT – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant was convicted on a charge of murder at trial – where the applicant lodged complaints with the respondent in respect of two lawyers and a law practice employee involved in his defence more than five years after the conduct complained of occurred – where the respondent notified the applicant of the respondent’s decisions to dismiss two of the complaints and to take no further action in respect of the third complaint – where the applicant applied for judicial review of the three decisions of the respondent under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) – where the respondent brought three applications to summarily dismiss the origination applications for judicial review under s 48 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) – whether the originating applications should be dismissed because the decisions which the applicant seeks to review are not decisions to which the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) applies

Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), s 20, s 48

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 24, s 25, s 430, s 432, s 446, s 448, s 709

Griffith University v Tang (2005) 221 CLR 99

Leadpoint Pty Ltd v LSC [2015] QSC 254

Murphy v LSC [2016] QSC 174

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared in person

D Holliday for the respondent

1. Jackson J: These are three applications to summarily dismiss originating applications for judicial review. Each application for judicial review is for a statutory order of review under s 20 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld) (“JRA”). Each application to dismiss is brought under s 48 of the JRA on the ground that no reasonable basis for the originating application is disclosed or the originating application is frivolous or vexatious.

1. The respondent’s point is that a statutory order of review under s 20 of the JRA may only be made in relation to a decision to which the JRA applies. A decision to which the JRA applies is defined relevantly in s 4 of the JRA to mean “a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment (whether or not in the exercise of a discretion)”. The respondent submits that each of the decisions challenged by the originating applications was not a decision to which the JRA applies within the meaning of that definition.