Harrington v Coote - [2012] SASC 205

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
HARRINGTON & ORS v COOTE & ANOR
[2012] SASC 205
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Gray
8 November 2012
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - PARTIES - OTHER MATTERS
Application by the Archbishop of Brisbane to intervene in proceedings where the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, declaratory relief concerning the jurisdiction of the Professional Standards Board and the operation of the Professional Standards Ordinance 2007 applicable to the Diocese of the Murray – whether the Archbishop of Brisbane should be granted leave to intervene.
Held: Application granted – the Archbishop of Brisbane joined as an intervener.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 89, referred to.
Jeavons v Chapman (2008) 257 LSJS 463; Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd (2011) 86 ALJR 205; Levy v The State of Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579; Corporate Affairs Commission v Bradley [1974] 1 NSWLR 391; Hocking v Southern Greyhound Racing Club (1993) 61 SASR 213; Eastern Districts Azzuri Sports Club Inc v SA Soccer Federation Inc (No 1) (1988) 142 LSJS 121; O'Meara v FWV Stanke Holdings Pty Ltd (2007) 250 LSJS 195, considered.

HARRINGTON & ORS v COOTE & ANOR
[2012] SASC 205
Civil
GRAY J.

This is an application for intervention.
The broad effect of the plaintiffs’ claim in the within proceeding is to seek declaratory relief concerning the jurisdiction of the Professional Standards Board and, more generally, the operation of the Professional Standards Ordinance 2007 applicable to the Diocese of The Murray. This Ordinance is largely mirrored in the Professional Standards regimes of 21 of the 23 Dioceses which make up the Anglican Church of Australia.
On 8 August 2012, Phillip John Aspinall, the Archbishop of Brisbane, sought permission to intervene in this proceeding. The application for intervention was supported by the plaintiffs and initially opposed by the first defendant, Peter John Coote. When the application was listed for hearing Mr Coote indicated that he did not oppose an order for intervention provided that the intervener did not unnecessarily duplicate submissions advanced by the plaintiffs. The intervener informed the Court that he does not propose to lead any evidence in the proceeding.
On 11 October 2012, I made an order referring the within proceeding to the Full Court for hearing. On that occasion, I also ordered that Dr Aspinall be joined as an intervener in the proceeding. As the matter has been referred to the Full Court, I consider it appropriate at this time to provide my reasons for the making of the order for intervention.
The application by Dr Aspinall to intervene was made pursuant to rule 89 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) which provides as follows:
(1)The Court may, on application by a person who wants to intervene in an action, permit intervention on conditions determined by the Court.
(2)An application for permission to intervene must be supported by an affidavit stating—
(a) the…

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 Harrington v Coote

Details

AGLC: Harrington v Coote [2012] SASC 205
Case: [2012] SASC 205
Decision Date: 8 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Harrington v Coote, the plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including declarations about the jurisdiction of the Professional Standards Board and the operation of the Professional Standards Ordinance 2007, as it pertains to the Diocese of the Murray. The Archbishop of Brisbane lodged an application to intervene in these proceedings, seeking to be joined as an intervener. The central issue before the court was whether the Archbishop of Brisbane should be granted leave to intervene in the proceedings.

The court examined the relevant rules of court and considered the potential impact of the Archbishop of Brisbane's intervention on the proceedings. It was noted that the Archbishop's intervention could provide additional perspectives and insights into the jurisdictional and legislative questions at the heart of the case. The court determined that allowing the Archbishop to intervene would not unduly prejudice or delay the proceedings and would, in fact, benefit the comprehensive examination of the issues before the court. Consequently, the application to intervene was successful.

Accordingly, the Archbishop of Brisbane was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings, thereby becoming a party to the case. This decision allows the Archbishop to participate in the legal process, potentially presenting arguments and evidence that could influence the outcome of the case concerning the jurisdiction of the Professional Standards Board and the applicability of the Professional Standards Ordinance 2007.

Orders