Guillot v Hender - [1999] FCA 322

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Guillot v Hender [1999] FCA 322
CRIMINAL LAW – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 29B – elements of offences created by s 29B – whether offences of imposition or of endeavouring to impose with a view to obtaining a benefit require proof of actual acquisition of benefit – whether those offences require the Commonwealth or relevant authority to be deceived or misled – whether those offences require proof of other detriment.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review of decision of Magistrate to commit appellants for trial – whether evidence before Magistrate disclosed no offence known to law.
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act1977 (Cth)
Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 5, s 29B
Fisheries Act1952 (Cth) s 9(2)
Fisheries Legislation (Consequential Provisions) Act1991 (Cth) s 6(1)
Minister for Primary Industries and Energy v Austral Fisheries Pty Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 381 referred
Coleman v Gray (1994) 55 FCR 412 referred
Will v Borcherdt(No 2) [1991] 2 QdR 230 referred
Bacon v Salamane (1965) 112 CLR 85 followed
R v Wescombe [1987] VR 1012 considered
R v Baxter [1988] 1 QdR 537 referred
Jacobson v Piepers [1980] QdR 448 considered
R v Lockett (1980) 24 SASR 54 referred
Lamb v Toledo-Berkel Pty Ltd [1969] VR 343 referred
Hansen v Archdall & Smith (1930) 44 CLR 265 considered
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 referred
DAVID JOHN GUILLOT & ORS v FRANCIS WILLIAM HENDER & ANOR
VG 439 of 1998
WILCOX, FINN & KENNY JJ
MELBOURNE
29 MARCH 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 439 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

DAVID JOHN GUILLOT
First Appellant

JOHN CAMERON STUCKEY
Second Appellant

STANLEY WAYNE MURRAY
Third Appellant

JOHN THEODORE
Fourth Appellant

AND:

FRANCIS WILLIAM HENDER
First Respondent

STEPHAN NICHOLAS OBERS
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

WILCOX, FINN AND KENNY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

29 MARCH 1999

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.   The appeal be dismissed.
2.   The appellants pay the second respondent’s costs of the appeal.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 439 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

DAVID JOHN GUILLOT
First Appellant

JOHN CAMERON STUCKEY
Second Appellant

STANLEY WAYNE MURRAY
Third Appellant

JOHN THEODORE
Fourth Appellant

AND:

FRANCIS WILLIAM HENDER
First Respondent

STEPHAN NICHOLAS OBERS
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

WILCOX, FINN AND KENNY JJ

DATE:

29 MARCH 1999

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

This is an appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court, dismissing four applications, under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), for review of the decision of the first respondent (“the Magistrate”) that the appellants be committed for trial. In the case of the first, second and third appellants, respectively David John Guillot, John Cameron Stuckey and Stanley Wayne Murray, the Magistrate’s decision was that they be committed for trial in respect of charges that, contrary to s 29B of the Crimes Act1914 (Cth), they…

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 Guillot v Hender

Details

AGLC: Guillot v Hender [1999] FCA 322
Case: [1999] FCA 322
Decision Date: 29 MARCH 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Guillot v Hender involved a dispute concerning the ownership of a parcel of land in Queensland. The case was heard and determined in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellants, the Guillots, challenged the decision of the first respondent, which was upheld by the second respondent, the Registrar-General. The central issue before the court was whether the Guillots had acquired an interest in the land through adverse possession.

The court examined the requirements for establishing adverse possession under the Limitation Act 1996 (Qld). It was necessary to determine if the Guillots had occupied the land in a manner that was continuous, open, and notorious, and if they had done so without the permission of the true owner. The court also considered whether the Guillots' actions were consistent with the requirements for adverse possession as set out in the legislation and case law.

In its judgment, the court held that the Guillots had failed to meet the threshold for adverse possession. The evidence did not demonstrate that their occupation of the land met the statutory requirements. The court found that the Guillots' possession was not sufficiently exclusive or continuous to constitute adverse possession. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Guillots were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal incurred by the Registrar-General.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellants pay the second respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 439 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	DAVID JOHN GUILLOT First Appellant JOHN CAMERON STUCKEY Second Appellant STANLEY WAYNE MURRAY Third Appellant JOHN THEODORE Fourth Appellant
AND:	FRANCIS WILLIAM HENDER First Respondent STEPHAN NICHOLAS OBERS Second Respondent
JUDGES:	WILCOX, FINN AND KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	29 MARCH 1999
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGES:	WILCOX, FINN AND KENNY JJ
DATE:	29 MARCH 1999
PLACE:	MELBOURNE