Harrington v Coote (No 2) - [2012] SASC 206

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
HARRINGTON & ORS v COOTE & ANOR (No 2)
[2012] SASC 206
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Gray
8 November 2012
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - HEARING OF APPEAL - PROCEDURE
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY
Application for referral of proceedings to the Full Court - where the plaintiffs seek a declaration from the Court that the Professional Standards Board of the Diocese of the Murray of the Anglican Church of Australia had jurisdiction to determine a reference made by the Professional Standards Committee - where, in the alternative, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that a decision of the reviewer, the second defendant, that the Professional Standards Ordinance does not authorise an inquiry into the conduct of the first defendant in 1994-1998 is invalid - where the plaintiffs also seek an injunction restraining the reviewer from making any determination or order under specified sections of the Professional Standards Ordinance - whether the proceedings should be referred to the Full Court for hearing and determination.
Held: Application granted - the proceedings referred to the Full Court for hearing and determination.
Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 17, s 31, s 48 and s 49; Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 16, r 17 and r 211, referred to.

HARRINGTON & ORS v COOTE & ANOR (No 2)
[2012] SASC 206
Civil
GRAY J.

In the within proceedings, the first five plaintiffs are members of the Professional Standards Committee for the Anglican Diocese of The Murray. The sixth plaintiff is the administrator of the Diocese of The Murray of the Anglican Church of Australia and the seventh plaintiff is the Synod of the Diocese of The Murray of the Anglican Church of Australia.
The plaintiffs seek a declaration from the Court that the Professional Standards Board of the Diocese of the Murray of the Anglican Church of Australia had jurisdiction to determine a reference made to the Professional Standards Board by the Professional Standards Committee. In the alternative, a declaration is sought that a decision of the second defendant and the reviewer, Neville Morcombe QC, that the Professional Standards Ordinance 2007 does not authorise an inquiry into the conduct of the first defendant, Peter John Coote, in 1994-1998 is invalid. Finally, an injunction is sought restraining Mr Morcombe QC from making any determination or order under specified sections of the Professional Standards Ordinance.
Mr Coote sought an order that these proceedings be referred to the Full Court for hearing and determination. The plaintiffs generally supported the application and the intervener, Phillip John Aspinall, did not wish to be heard on the application. On 11 October 2012, I made an order that the proceedings be referred and gave further directions to enable the hearing to take place during the November sittings of the Full Court. These are my reasons for making that order.
Section 48 of the Supreme…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Harrington v Coote (No 2) [2012] SASC 206
Case: [2012] SASC 206
Decision Date: 8 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs in Harrington v Coote (No 2) sought to have a decision made by the Professional Standards Board of the Diocese of the Murray of the Anglican Church of Australia reviewed, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction. Alternatively, they sought a declaration that a decision by a reviewer, the second defendant, that the Professional Standards Ordinance did not permit an inquiry into the conduct of the first defendant in the period 1994-1998 was invalid. They also sought an injunction to prevent the reviewer from making any determination or order under specified sections of the Professional Standards Ordinance. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the plaintiffs applied for the proceedings to be referred to the Full Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the proceedings should be referred to the Full Court for hearing and determination and, if so, the appropriate procedure to be followed in such a referral. The court needed to consider the nature of the dispute, the complexity of the issues, and whether the Full Court was the appropriate forum for resolving them.

The court found that the proceedings were appropriate for hearing by the Full Court. It considered that the case involved significant questions of statutory interpretation and the jurisdiction of church bodies, which were matters of general public importance. The court noted that all relevant facts, as well as arguably relevant facts, were agreed upon by the parties. It concluded that the proceedings should be referred to the Full Court for hearing and determination to ensure that the issues were properly addressed and resolved.

In conclusion, the court referred the proceedings to the Full Court for hearing and determination, acknowledging the importance and complexity of the issues involved and the need for a higher level of scrutiny and expertise. The specific orders made by the Full Court were not detailed in the text, but the referral was a significant step towards resolving the dispute.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

GRAY J

In the present proceeding, all the relevant facts and all the arguably relevant facts that are sought to be relied upon by the parties are agreed. The action is one that is appropriate for hearing by the Full Court.Conclusion I referred the proceedings to the Full Court for hearing and determination.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.