Holman v Campbell - [2024] QCA 176

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Holman v Campbell [2024] QCA 176

PARTIES:

LISA MARIE HOLMAN
(applicant)
v
NICHOLAS ADRIAN CAMPBELL AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CAMPBELL CHILD CARE TRUST TRADING AS FREE RANGE KIDS
ABN 73 752 292 745
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4923 of 2024
DC No 3262 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 22 March 2024 (Kent KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

24 September 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 September 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Boddice JA and Henry J

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal refused.

2.   Any additional evidence relevant to costs may be filed:

(a)   by the respondent by 4 pm on 1 October 2024;

(b) by the applicant by 4 pm on 9 October 2024.

3.   Any further submissions as to costs may be made in writing, not exceeding four pages, filed:

(a)   by the respondent by 4 pm on 16 October 2024;

(b) by the applicant by 4 pm on 23 October 2024.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where the applicant filed particular documents which seemingly attempted to amend her employment claim in the Magistrates Court – where the Magistrate made an interlocutory decision that documents did not form part of employment claim but explained that applicant could seek leave to amend claim – where the applicant appealed the decision to the District Court – where the District Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal that decision to this Court – whether leave to appeal should be granted

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 45, s 539
Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld), s 42A(1), s 42B, s 42B(2), s 42B(3), s 42F, s 42ZA, s 42ZC, s 45, s 45(2), s 45(2)(a), s 45(5)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 22(1), r 377, r 377(1), r 379, r 522B, r 522C(1), r 522C(2), r 522J, r 522N

Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39, cited
Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd (2021) 7 QR 113; [2021] QCA 20, cited
In re the Will of F.B. Gilbert (dec) (1946) 46 SR(NSW) 318; [1946] NSWStRp 24, cited
Pearson v Thuringowa City Council [2006] 1 Qd R 416; [2005] QCA 310, cited
Pickering v McArthur[2005] QCA 294, cited

COUNSEL:

A P Abaza (sol) for the applicant
B J Heath (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Andrew P Abaza for the applicant
Carter Newell Lawyers for the respondent

THE COURT: Ms Holman is pursuing an employment claim in the Magistrates Court against Mr Campbell as trustee of a trust operating a childcare business. She…

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 Holman v Campbell

Details

AGLC: Holman v Campbell [2024] QCA 176
Case: [2024] QCA 176
Decision Date: 24 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Holman, the applicant, filed an appeal against a decision of the District Court, which had dismissed her appeal against the Magistrates Court's decision. The initial employment claim was filed by the applicant in the Magistrates Court, which was subsequently amended in an attempt to include new particulars. The Magistrate ruled that these particulars did not form part of the employment claim, but allowed the applicant to seek leave to amend the claim. The applicant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to this Court from the District Court's decision.

The central legal issue was whether the Court should grant leave to the applicant to appeal from the District Court's decision. The applicant argued that the District Court had erred in law by refusing to grant leave to appeal and by dismissing the appeal. The applicant contended that the District Court failed to adequately consider her arguments and that the appeal should be allowed on the basis of the arguments presented. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the District Court's decision was correct and that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for leave to appeal.

The Court considered the applicant's arguments and found that the District Court had not erred in law. The Court held that the District Court was correct in its assessment of the applicant's arguments and that there were no grounds for the applicant to appeal. The Court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting leave to appeal. Therefore, the Court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The Court further ordered that any additional evidence relevant to costs be filed by the parties within specified timeframes and that any further submissions as to costs be made in writing, not exceeding four pages, within further specified timeframes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal refused.

2. Any additional evidence relevant to costs may be filed:

(a) by the respondent by 4 pm on 1 October 2024;

(b) by the applicant by 4 pm on 9 October 2024.

3. Any further submissions as to costs may be made in writing, not exceeding four pages, filed:

(a) by the respondent by 4 pm on 16 October 2024;

(b) by the applicant by 4 pm on 23 October 2024.

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.

CITATION:	Holman v Campbell [2024] QCA 176
PARTIES:	LISA MARIE HOLMAN (applicant) v NICHOLAS ADRIAN CAMPBELL AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CAMPBELL CHILD CARE TRUST TRADING AS FREE RANGE KIDS ABN 73 752 292 745 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4923 of 2024 DC No 3262 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 22 March 2024 (Kent KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	24 September 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 September 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Boddice JA and Henry J
ORDERS:	1. Leave to appeal refused. 2. Any additional evidence relevant to costs may be filed: (a) by the respondent by 4 pm on 1 October 2024; (b) by the applicant by 4 pm on 9 October 2024. 3. Any further submissions as to costs may be made in writing, not exceeding four pages, filed: (a) by the respondent by 4 pm on 16 October 2024; (b) by the applicant by 4 pm on 23 October 2024.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – FROM DISTRICT COURT – BY LEAVE OF COURT – where the applicant filed particular documents which seemingly attempted to amend her employment claim in the Magistrates Court – where the Magistrate made an interlocutory decision that documents did not form part of employment claim but explained that applicant could seek leave to amend claim – where the applicant appealed the decision to the District Court – where the District Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal that decision to this Court – whether leave to appeal should be granted District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 45, s 539 Magistrates Courts Act 1921 (Qld), s 42A(1), s 42B, s 42B(2), s 42B(3), s 42F, s 42ZA, s 42ZC, s 45, s 45(2), s 45(2)(a), s 45(5) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 22(1), r 377, r 377(1), r 379, r 522B, r 522C(1), r 522C(2), r 522J, r 522N Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 39, cited Goldsmith v AMP Life Ltd (2021) 7 QR 113; [2021] QCA 20, cited In re the Will of F.B. Gilbert (dec) (1946) 46 SR(NSW) 318; [1946] NSWStRp 24, cited Pearson v Thuringowa City Council [2006] 1 Qd R 416; [2005] QCA 310, cited Pickering v McArthur[2005] QCA 294, cited
COUNSEL:	A P Abaza (sol) for the applicant B J Heath (sol) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Andrew P Abaza for the applicant Carter Newell Lawyers for the respondent