Guilfoyle v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd - [2021] QDC 221

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Guilfoyle v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 221

PARTIES:

AARON JOHN GUILFOYLE

(appellant)

v

J HUTCHINSON PTY LTD

(respondent)

FILE NO:

916/2021

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court (Magistrate Coates)

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2021

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 July 2021

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court to proceed according to law and be determined by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who determined the matter initially.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – AMENDMENT – GENERALLY – where appellant caused complaint to be made for breach of statutory duty – where complaint struck out by magistrate for being a ‘nullity’ – where magistrate refused to allow amendment – whether magistrate should have allowed any amendments to ameliorate any errors.

INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY – GENERALLY – PROCEDURE – ORIGINATING PROCESS – where appellant alleged breach of statutory health and safety duty pursuant to Work Health and Safety Act – where complaint made – where complaint struck-out for being a ‘nullity’ and thus insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court – whether magistrate erred in striking out the complaint – whether complaint sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court.

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code (Qld), s 564

Criminal Practice Rules (Qld), r 15

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 42, 46, 47, 48

Justices Act 1928 (NT), ss 22A, 55, 181, 183

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 19, 32

CASES:

DPP (Vic) v Kypri (2011) 33 VR 157, cited

Harrison v President, Industrial Court [2017] 1 Qd R 515, considered

Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531, considered

S Kidman & Co Ltd v Lowndes CM (2016) 314 FLR 358, followed

COUNSEL:
G R Rice QC and S E Harburg for the appellant

P Roney QC and R Byrnes for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor for the appellant

McCullough Robertson for the respondent

Introduction

The appellant on 12 June 2020, caused a complaint to be made against the respondent alleging breach of a statutory health and safety duty pursuant to the Work Health and Safety Act (‘WHS’). On 14 April 2021, Magistrate Coates ordered the complaint be struck-out as it was “[a nullity] and beyond the reach of amendment”.
The appellant appeals against her Honour’s order. The sole ground of appeal is that the Magistrate erred in law in finding the complaint a nullity. The point in issue is whether the complaint was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court, or whether the complaint was a nullity.
The respondent contends the appeal should be dismissed because the complaint does not identify with sufficient particularity the essential factual ingredients of the alleged offence so as to engage the jurisdiction of the Court. The respondent submits the complaint fails to contain “almost every essential factual ingredient…

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 Guilfoyle v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd 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: [2021] QDC 221
Decision Date: 15 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Guilfoyle v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd, the appellant, Aaron John Guilfoyle, sought to challenge the decision of the Magistrates Court of Queensland which dismissed his complaint against J Hutchinson Pty Ltd for an alleged breach of statutory duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The primary issue was whether the Magistrates Court was correct in striking out the complaint as a 'nullity' and refusing to allow any amendments to the complaint. The appeal centred around the adequacy of the complaint and the procedural fairness in allowing amendments to the complaint.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate erred in striking out the complaint for being a 'nullity' and whether the complaint was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court. The court was required to determine the standard of particularity required in a complaint to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court and whether the magistrate should have allowed any amendments to ameliorate any errors in the complaint. Additionally, the court needed to consider the procedural fairness in refusing to allow amendments to the complaint.

The court found that the magistrate erred in striking out the complaint as a 'nullity' and in refusing to allow any amendments to the complaint. The court held that the complaint was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court and that the magistrate should have allowed any amendments to ameliorate any errors in the complaint. The court held that the magistrate’s approach was incorrect in that she had considered the sufficiency of the factual ingredients of the complaint rather than whether the essential legal ingredients of the offence were stated so as to engage the Court’s jurisdiction. The court held that the magistrate’s refusal to allow any amendments to the complaint was unfair and that the magistrate should have allowed any amendments to ameliorate any errors in the complaint.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court to proceed according to law and be determined by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who determined the matter initially.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court to proceed according to law and be determined by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who determined the matter initially.

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

The terms of the complaint are as follows:“… Aaron John Guilfoyle … says that on or about 20 June 2018, at South Brisbane, J Hutchinson Pty Ltd was conducting a business or undertaking, and held a health and safety duty, namely a duty pursuant to s 19(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers engaged, or caused to be engaged by the said J Hutchinson Pty Ltd while the workers were at work in the business or undertaking, and failed to comply with the said duty, and the failure exposed an individual to a risk of death or serious injury, contrary to s 32 of the Work health and Safety Act 2011.contrary to the Acts in such case made and provided.”Magistrate’s decision The learned Magistrate in her reasons initially identified the issue as being whether the complaint was void because, as she said, it fails to particularise the legal ingredients of the offence, and so fails to engage the jurisdiction of the Court.[2][2]Her Honour’s judgment at p 2, line 15. Her Honour set out s 47 (1) of the Justices Act (‘JA’), which I shall shortly set out and said “the question for decision is whether the complaint must outline the essential factual ingredients of the actual offence outlined in the initiating complaint or in the alternative, whether a bare bones complaint outlining meagre fact and legislative structure of an offence is sufficient.”[3][3]Her Honour’s judgment at p 2, line 37. Her Honour then referred the provisions of s 48(1) of the JA, (which I shall also later set out) and said that“at the heart of this decision is should the complaint…contain requirements that a particular act, matter, thing or duty transgressed be outlined as the foundation of the charge and in the complaint.” Her Honour referred to a number of cases and posed the question for determination in these terms:[4]“What would be the standard of particularity that a complaint itself must meet at the initiating state in order for it to be valid?”[4]Her Honour’s judgment at p 6, line 14. This suggests her Honour was considering the question of whether the factual contents of the complaint were sufficient, suggesting her Honour had turned her mind to the sufficiency of the alleged factual ingredients of the complaint, rather than considering whether the essential legal ingredients of the offence were stated so as to engage the Court’s jurisdiction as she earlier had stated. This approach by her Honour is confirmed by her next comment that “the current complaint before the Court fails to identify the actions that the company could have taken or any act or omission constituting any offence under the Act.” Her Honour then said:“… some matters other than the text of the offence-creating provisions must be alleged. I find that whilst this complaint discloses the legal elements of an offence, it fails to disclose any of the essential factual ingredients of an offence. Therefore, any potential amendment would be an impossibility. I find that this complaint is a nullity and beyond the reach of amendment.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Guilfoyle v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 221
PARTIES:	AARON JOHN GUILFOYLE (appellant) v J HUTCHINSON PTY LTD (respondent)
FILE NO:	916/2021
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane Magistrates Court (Magistrate Coates)
DELIVERED ON:	15 September 2021
DELIVERED AT:	District Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 July 2021
JUDGE:	Reid DCJ
ORDER:	1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court to proceed according to law and be determined by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who determined the matter initially.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – AMENDMENT – GENERALLY – where appellant caused complaint to be made for breach of statutory duty – where complaint struck out by magistrate for being a ‘nullity’ – where magistrate refused to allow amendment – whether magistrate should have allowed any amendments to ameliorate any errors. INDUSTRIAL LAW – WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY – GENERALLY – PROCEDURE – ORIGINATING PROCESS – where appellant alleged breach of statutory health and safety duty pursuant to Work Health and Safety Act – where complaint made – where complaint struck-out for being a ‘nullity’ and thus insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court – whether magistrate erred in striking out the complaint – whether complaint sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrates Court.
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code (Qld), s 564 Criminal Practice Rules (Qld), r 15 Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 42, 46, 47, 48 Justices Act 1928 (NT), ss 22A, 55, 181, 183 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s 19, 32
CASES:	DPP (Vic) v Kypri (2011) 33 VR 157, cited Harrison v President, Industrial Court [2017] 1 Qd R 515, considered Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531, considered S Kidman & Co Ltd v Lowndes CM (2016) 314 FLR 358, followed
COUNSEL:	G R Rice QC and S E Harburg for the appellant P Roney QC and R Byrnes for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor for the appellant McCullough Robertson for the respondent