Guilfoyle v Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2021] QMC 3

MAGISTRATES COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Guilfoyle v Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) (2021) QMC 3
PARTIES:Aaron John Guilfoyle (Complainant/Respondent)

v
Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd (Defendant/Applicant)

FILE NOS: MAG 33501/20(0)

ORIGINATING COURT: Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING: Application for costs

DELIVERED ON: 29 June 2021

DELIVERED AT: Toowoomba

HEARING DATE: On the papers

MAGISTRATE: G. Lee

ORDER:(1) The Complaint is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

(2) The complainant pay the defendant’s costs in the amount of $13,834.52.

CATCHWORDS: COSTS – where Complaint struck out due to lack of jurisdiction of court to hear and determine the Complaint – whether costs that are “just and reasonable” should be awarded – whether those costs should be as per scale in the Justices Regulation 2014, Schedule 2 – whether a higher amount is justified because of the “special difficulty, complexity or importance” of the case

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 157, 158, 158B & 159
Justices Regulation 2014, Schedule 2
Baker v Smith (No 2) [2019] QDC 242

Bell v Townsend [2014] QMC 30
Cullinane v McCahon [2014] QDC 120
Durant v Gardner [2000] QDC 198
Fletcher v Demag Cranes and Components Pty Ltd [2020] QMC 9
Hickey v Crime and Misconduct Commission [2008] QDC 340
Interclean Services Ltd v Auckland Regional Council [2002] 3 NZLR 489
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Morley v Senewiratne [2008] QDC 296
Schloss v Bell; Bell v Schloss [2016] ICQ 17
Travers v McDonagh; Carey v La Rocca [2013] QDC 177
Whitby v Stockair Pty Ltd & Jackson [2015] QDC 79

COUNSEL:Ms A Sanderson for the Complainant/Respondent
Mr P Roney QC for the Defendant/Applicant

SOLICITORS: Office of the Work Health and Safety for the Complainant/Respondent
Herbert Smith Freehills for the Defendant/Applicant

On 29 April 2021 I delivered judgement in Niepe’s application to stay a complaint made on 13 February 2020 charging it with two offences under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 finding that the complaint was void ab initio[1]. Formal orders were deferred to afford the parties the opportunity of considering the reasons for judgment and to hear submissions as to costs at a later date when formal orders would then be made[2].
[1] Guilfoyle v Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd [2021] QMC 1.
[2] Section 159 Justices Act 1886.

Directions were subsequently made for the filing and serving of submissions on Niepe’s application for costs. Written submissions for Niepe (with annexures) are dated 24 May 2021 and, for the complainant, dated 2 June 2021. The parties agreed to the issue of costs being decided on the papers.

The annexures to Niepe’s submissions were:

A letter dated 3 September 2020 from Niepe’s solicitors to the prosecution inviting a withdrawal of the complaint for reasons along similar lines as outlined in my judgement.
A letter from the prosecutor in response dated 22 October 2020 declining that request.
Thirteen monthly invoices for professional services of Herbert Smith Freehills charged to Niepe.
Two Memorandum of Fees of Mr Roney QC.

Statutory provisions

[4] Provisions 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 Guilfoyle v Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd (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: [2021] QMC 3
Decision Date: 29 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between Guilfoyle, the complainant, and Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd, the defendant. The nature of the complaint was not explicitly detailed in the text, but it was related to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the matter. The court in question was a superior court in Australia.

The central legal issue was whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint against Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd. The court had to consider the statutory provisions and previous case law to determine if it had the authority to hear the matter. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the complaint was within the scope of its jurisdiction, particularly in light of any potential limitations or exclusions specified in relevant legislation.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the relevant legal principles, the court determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The court found that the complaint fell outside the scope of its authority and was not within the statutory framework that granted it jurisdiction. Consequently, the court struck out the complaint for want of jurisdiction and ordered that the complainant pay the defendant’s costs in the specified amount. The reasoning was based on a clear interpretation of jurisdictional provisions and an application of precedent that supported the court’s conclusion.

The final orders of the court were that the complaint be struck out for want of jurisdiction and that the complainant pay the defendant’s costs in the amount of $13,834.52. This outcome effectively terminated the proceedings initiated by the complainant against Niepe Constructions Pty Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Complaint is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

(2) The complainant pay the defendant’s costs in the amount of $13,834.52.

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.