Gregory John Ryan v Fraser Coast Regional Council - [2025] QCA 108

[2025] QCA 108

COURT OF APPEAL

MULLINS P

Appeal No 2162 of 2025
DC No 10 of 2025

GREGORY JOHN RYAN Applicant

FRASER COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 19 JUNE 2025

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant applies for leave to appeal from the District Court Judge’s order, made on 21 February 2025, refusing the applicant leave to appeal from the Magistrate’s refusal on 3 October 2024 to set aside the default judgment for outstanding rates, obtained by the respondent on 3 July 2024 and amended on 4 July 2024. The application was listed for hearing today for the applicant to show cause why the application should not be struck out as an abuse of process. The application was not accompanied by an affidavit that set out the reasons for justifying the leave. The applicant did provide, however, to the registry a document that is entitled Notice of Appeal and sets out his grounds for appeal that is based on what the District Court Judge described, in paragraph 7 of his judgment, as “sovereign citizen pseudo-law.”

APPLICANT: Here we go.

THE PRESIDENT: To give an example, the grounds start off with, “I, as holder of the office of beneficiary, waive all benefits that would otherwise accrue to my estate in relation to this matter.” It deals with beliefs that the applicant holds that the State Government, being a privately owned corporation, created the full caps name, referring to the surname by which the court’s file has been created, reflecting the name of the applicant before the District Court and also the Magistrates Court. And the ground goes on to say that, “I did not write that name on my contracts, the Government changed it to that name. I wish for it to be changed back to Gregory-John-Beneficiary.” The notice of appeal goes on to refer to a US Supreme Court ruling about no corporate jurisdiction over natural land and makes criticisms of the District Court Judge’s opinion that the applicant is a sovereign citizen.

The ground that the applicant pointed out that he pursues as a substantive ground is based on his belief that he is a beneficiary and has a trustee, and that the trustee was never served, I quote, “This ground. Proper due process has not occurred, as only the beneficiary who carries no liability was given documents as opposed to the (a) lawful trustee or administrator whose fiduciary role is to deal with financial matters regarding the estate. How can, say, the trustee defend himself – itself if that party hasn’t been served???” I asked the applicant whether he was bankrupt, and he confirmed that he was not bankrupt. That is the only circumstance known to law where a natural person has a trustee who acts for them in the financial matters where they are not otherwise incapacitated from acting.

The application for leave to appeal, on its face, is so deficient that it constitutes an abuse of process. It fails to disclose the grounds for…

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 Gregory John Ryan v Fraser Coast Regional Council 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: [2025] QCA 108
Decision Date: 19 JUNE 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gregory John Ryan applied for leave to appeal against an order of the District Court refusing him leave to appeal a Magistrate's decision to deny his application to set aside a default judgment for unpaid rates obtained by Fraser Coast Regional Council. The application was heard by the President of the Court of Appeal, who found the application to be an abuse of process and struck it out. The President noted that the application was not accompanied by an affidavit setting out the reasons for justifying the leave and was instead based on "sovereign citizen pseudo-law". The applicant's grounds for appeal included his belief that he is a beneficiary and not liable for the debt, and that his trustee was not served with the documents. The applicant also sought relief against the District Court Judge and the respondent's solicitor, including arrest warrants for various offences.

The court found that the relief sought in the application was improper and offensive, and that the applicant was not using the processes of the court appropriately. The President noted that the judgment obtained by the respondent was for unpaid rates and was less than the minimum amount of a minor civil debt claim, and that the applicant was not bankrupt. The President found that the application was so deficient that it constituted an abuse of process and struck it out. The President also noted that the applicant's conduct during the hearing was disruptive and disrespectful, and that he was given an opportunity to address the matter but failed to do so in a satisfactory way.

The court found that the application was an abuse of process and struck it out. The applicant was not granted leave to appeal the District Court Judge's order refusing leave to appeal the Magistrate's decision. The final orders of the court included that the application for leave to appeal be struck out as an abuse of process, and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. The court also noted that the applicant's conduct during the hearing was disruptive and disrespectful, and that he was given an opportunity to address the matter but failed to do so in a satisfactory way.

Orders