Guilfoyle v Niepe Construction Pty Ltd - [2023] QDC 40

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Guilfoyle v Niepe Construction Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 40

PARTIES:

AARON JOHN GUILFOYLE

(appellant)

v
NIEPE CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D25/2021

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Toowoomba Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Toowoomba

HEARING DATE:

6 March 2023

JUDGES:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1.   The appeal is allowed.

2.   The decision of the Magistrate striking out the complaint for want of jurisdiction is set aside.

3.   The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba to be dealt with according to law.

4.   I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – OFFENCES – OTHER MATTERS – where a complaint was laid against the respondent alleging a breach of statutory health and safety duty pursuant to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) – where the Magistrate struck out the complaint – whether the complaint was a “nullity” and/or whether it was capable of amendment

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 564, 573
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 46, 47, 48, 222
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) ss 19, 32, 230

Ciorra v Cole [2004] VSC 416; (2004) 150 A Crim R 189; 42 MVR 547, cited
Clayton v John L Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 344, cited
Davies v Ryan [1933] HCA 64; (1933) 50 CLR 379, cited
Ex Parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 153; 55 WN (NSW) 63, cited

Guilfoyle v Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] QMC 1, overruled
Harrison v President of the Industrial Court of Queensland [2016] QCA 89; [2017] 1 Qd R 515, applied
J Hutchinson Pty Ltd v Guilfoyle [2022] QCA 186, applied
John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) [1987] HCA 42; (1987) 163 CLR 508; 27 A Crim R 228, cited
Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77; (1937) 59 CLR 567, cited
Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531; 262 ALR 569, cited
R v Lewis [1992] QCA 223; [1994] 1 Qd R 613; 63 A Crim R 18, cited
S Kidman & Co v Lowndes [2016] NTCA 5; (2016) 314 FLR 358; 264 IR 68, applied

COUNSEL:

Mr G Rice KC with Ms S Harburg for the appellant
Mr P Roney KC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor for the appellant
Herbert Smith Freehills for the respondent

Introduction

This is an appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) (“Justices Act”) against the decision of the Toowoomba Magistrates Court given on 29 April 2021 to strike out a complaint for want of jurisdiction and for the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs fixed in an amount of $13,834.52.
The ground of appeal is that the Magistrate…

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.

Continue reading Guilfoyle v Niepe Construction Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Guilfoyle v Niepe Construction Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 40
Case: [2023] QDC 40
Decision Date: 14 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Guilfoyle lodged a complaint against Niepe Construction Pty Ltd, alleging a breach of statutory health and safety duties under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld). The Magistrates Court struck out the complaint, prompting an appeal to the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appeal centred on whether the complaint was a nullity and if it was capable of amendment. The Court of Appeal examined whether the Magistrate erred in determining that the complaint was a nullity and whether it could be amended to address any jurisdictional issues.

The central issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the complaint was indeed a nullity and if it was amendable. The Court considered whether the Magistrate's decision to strike out the complaint was justified and if there was any basis to allow an amendment to cure the jurisdictional defect. The Court also had to determine whether the statutory provisions allowed for such amendments and if the complaint could be salvaged by addressing the identified issues.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate erred in striking out the complaint as a nullity. The Court held that the complaint was not inherently defective and could potentially be amended to address jurisdictional concerns. The Court found that the statutory provisions allowed for amendments in such cases and that the complaint could be remedied by making the necessary adjustments. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Magistrate's decision. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

The Court of Appeal issued several orders to rectify the situation. The appeal was allowed, and the Magistrate's decision to strike out the complaint was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba to be dealt with according to law, providing an opportunity to address any jurisdictional issues through amendment. Finally, the Court announced that it would hear the parties on the question of costs, allowing both sides to present their arguments regarding the financial implications of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the Magistrate striking out the complaint for want of jurisdiction is set aside.

3. The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba to be dealt with according to law.

4. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

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

In all of those circumstances, I am satisfied the appellant has established that legal errors occurred in this case. I am satisfied the ground of appeal is made out. Conclusion For the reasons given, the following orders should be made:1.The appeal is allowed.2.The decision of the Magistrate to strike out the complaint for want of jurisdiction is set aside.3.The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba to be dealt with according to law.4.I will hear the parties on the question of costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Guilfoyle v Niepe Construction Pty Ltd [2023] QDC 40
PARTIES:	AARON JOHN GUILFOYLE (appellant) v NIEPE CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D25/2021
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Toowoomba Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	14 March 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Toowoomba
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2023
JUDGES:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The decision of the Magistrate striking out the complaint for want of jurisdiction is set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba to be dealt with according to law. 4. I will hear the parties on the question of costs.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – OFFENCES – OTHER MATTERS – where a complaint was laid against the respondent alleging a breach of statutory health and safety duty pursuant to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) – where the Magistrate struck out the complaint – whether the complaint was a “nullity” and/or whether it was capable of amendment Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) ss 564, 573 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 46, 47, 48, 222 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) ss 19, 32, 230 Ciorra v Cole [2004] VSC 416; (2004) 150 A Crim R 189; 42 MVR 547, cited Clayton v John L Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 344, cited Davies v Ryan [1933] HCA 64; (1933) 50 CLR 379, cited Ex Parte Lovell; Re Buckley (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 153; 55 WN (NSW) 63, cited Guilfoyle v Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] QMC 1, overruled Harrison v President of the Industrial Court of Queensland [2016] QCA 89; [2017] 1 Qd R 515, applied J Hutchinson Pty Ltd v Guilfoyle [2022] QCA 186, applied John L Pty Ltd v Attorney-General (NSW) [1987] HCA 42; (1987) 163 CLR 508; 27 A Crim R 228, cited Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77; (1937) 59 CLR 567, cited Kirk v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] HCA 1; (2010) 239 CLR 531; 262 ALR 569, cited R v Lewis [1992] QCA 223; [1994] 1 Qd R 613; 63 A Crim R 18, cited S Kidman & Co v Lowndes [2016] NTCA 5; (2016) 314 FLR 358; 264 IR 68, applied
COUNSEL:	Mr G Rice KC with Ms S Harburg for the appellant Mr P Roney KC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor for the appellant Herbert Smith Freehills for the respondent