Hastings v Brennan - [2005] VSC 269

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4508 of 2003

ANTHONY RICHARD HASTINGS	Plaintiff
v
NIGEL BRENNAN and COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 JULY 2005
DATE OF RULING:	22 JULY 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	HASTINGS v BRENNAN & ANOR
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 269

---

ORDERS –Application for judicial review of appeal from Magistrates’ Court to County Court - Judgment for the plaintiff – Form of consequential orders – Effect of quashing orders below – No findings of fact – No power to make orders in relation to the Magistrates’ Court matter.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
Mr Hastings in person
For the First Defendant	Ms K. Judd	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

In the matter of Hastings v. Brennan[1], again I delivered judgment on 28 June 2005, as I did in the matter of Tantram v Courtney. Mr Hastings has submitted that in those circumstances, that is where he has succeeded in his application to have the decision of the County Court quashed, I should also make orders which will have the effect of extinguishing the conviction and penalty recorded in the Magistrates' Court at Bairnsdale.
[1]Hastings & Anor v Brennan& Anor; Tantram v Courtney & Anor [2005] VSC 228

I have sympathy with the position of the plaintiffs. The proceedings have been drawn out, they have doubtless involved considerable expense, and they have certainly involved, on Mr Hasting’s part, as I accept, a great deal of time and research, the results of which I have found to be of assistance both in the hearing of the application itself and this morning. I have been impressed with the diligence with which Mr Hastings has researched the law, and the care and politeness with which he has put his submissions.

I am nevertheless constrained by the law. It is of course my sworn duty to administer justice according to law. I cannot exceed the powers which have been conferred upon me. The rule of law would be negated were judges, of all people, to move beyond the territory circumscribed by the powers lawfully given to them. Sympathetic as one might be to the difficulties which individual litigants sometimes face given the complexities of the law, one is tempted to exercise authority to produce what might be thought to be a just result, even if by doing so one exceeds one's powers. I am sworn to resist that temptation.

In my opinion a single judge of this court when hearing an application for certiorari to quash a decision of the County Court on an appeal from the Magistrates' Court can do no more than quash that County Court decision, and then of course only if the relevant grounds have been made out. In my opinion Mr Hastings and Mr Tantram did make out grounds that required the quashing of the County Court decision. That was a decision…

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 Hastings v Brennan

Details

AGLC: Hastings v Brennan [2005] VSC 269
Case: [2005] VSC 269
Decision Date: 22 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hastings v Brennan was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought judicial review of an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court. The plaintiff, Hastings, sought to challenge the outcome of a matter in the Magistrates’ Court, which had ruled in favour of the defendant, Brennan. The appeal to the County Court was dismissed, and Hastings sought to review that decision. The central issue for the court was to determine whether the form of consequential orders issued by the County Court were appropriate, given that the appeal had been dismissed and no findings of fact had been made in the Magistrates’ Court matter.

The court was required to consider whether it had the power to make orders in relation to the Magistrates’ Court matter. It was noted that the quashing orders issued by the County Court had the effect of invalidating the appeal process, yet no findings of fact had been made by the Magistrates’ Court. The court examined whether, in the absence of such findings, it had any jurisdiction to make consequential orders regarding the original Magistrates’ Court matter.

The court concluded that, given the quashing of the appeal, there were no findings of fact from the Magistrates’ Court to consider. Consequently, the court held that it had no power to make orders in relation to the Magistrates’ Court matter. The reasoning was that the quashing of the appeal effectively nullified any prior proceedings, leaving the court without the necessary factual basis to make further orders. The court therefore dismissed the application for judicial review, affirming the original decision of the County Court.

Orders