J.B. Geraghty v Dairy Industry Tribunal - [2000] QSC 144

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: J.B. Geraghty & Ors v Dairy Industry Tribunal & Ors [2000] QSC 144

PARTIES:

FILE NO:

CITATION:

PARTIES:

JAMES BERNARD GERAGHTY, JOHN SAMUEL DANGAARD, RENARLIVALE PTY LTD and D & L O’CONNOR DAIRY FARMING PTY LTD (Applicant)
and
DAIRY INDUSTRY TRIBUNAL (First Respondent)
and
THE QUEENSLAND DAIRY AUTHORITY (Second Respondent)
and
A.A. McDOWALL, N.A. McDOWALL, G.W. McDOWALL, D.R. ANDERSON, W.P. ANDERSON, N.J. PEAGHAM, I.R. PEAGHAM, P.J. ROWE, P.L. ROWE, F.R. GALLO, F.A. GALLO, J.P. GALLO, B.I. LEES, S.I. LEES, G.W. MALKMUS, A.M. MALKMUS, P.J. WILLIAMS, R.H. FORD, S.A. FORD, T.W. PRANDOLINI, A. PRANDOLINI, G.J.C. SCOTT, F.M. SCOTT, R. HAPGOOD, M.I. HAPGOOD, J.L. JONES, DODDS BROS., C.R. BENTLEY, E. BENTLEY, B.M. JONES, J.G. DALEY, J.E. DALEY, M.G. HUMPHRIES, B.G. HUMPHRIES, K.W. ENGLISH, P. ENGLISH, D.R. DOOHAN, M.V. CAVANAGH, I.A.V.G. CAVANAGH, SOLEY BROTHERS (A FIRM), P.J. DALEY and J.A. DALEY (Third Respondents)

S1466 of 2000

Queensland Dairy Authority v Dairy Industry Tribunal and A.A. McDowall & Ors [2000] QSC

QUEENSLAND DAIRY AUTHORITY (Applicant)
and
DAIRY INDUSTRY TRIBUNAL (First Respondent)
and
A.A. McDOWALL, N.A. McDOWALL and G.W. McDOWALL, D.R. ANDERSON and W.P. ANDERSON, N.J. PEAGHAM and I.R. PEAGHAM, P.J. ROWE and P.L. ROWE, F.R. GALLO, F.A. GALLO and J.P. GALLO, B.I. LEES and S.I. LEES, G.W. MALKMUS and A.M. MALKMUS, P.J. WILLIAMS, R.H. FORD and S.A. FORD, T.W. PRANDOLINI and A. PRANDOLINI, G.J.C. SCOTT and F.M. SCOTT, R. HAPGOOD and M.I. HAPGOOD, J.L. JONES, DODDS BROS., C.R. BENTLEY and E. BENTLEY, B.M. JONES, J.G. DALEY, J.E. DALEY, M.G. HUMPHRIES and B.G. HUMPHRIES, K.W. ENGLISH and P. ENGLISH, B.R. DOOHAN, M.V. CAVANAGH and I.A.V.G. CAVANAGH, SOLEY BROTHERS (A FIRM), P.J. DALEY and J.A. DALEY (Second Respondents)

FILE NO: S1524 of 2000

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

DELIVERED ON: 19 May 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

JUDGE: Wilson J

ORDER:
In application no S1466 of 2000

(1)       that the decision of the first respondent of 24 January 2000 be set aside, with effect from that date;

(2)       that the matter be referred to the first respondent to be determined according to law;

(3)       that the first respondent give notice to all producers holding market milk entitlements in the North Queensland supply management region -

(a)       of the decision of this Court setting aside the decision of the first respondent;

(b)      that the appeals are to be determined by the first respondent according to law;

(c)       that any increase in the market milk entitlements of the appellants in the proceedings before the first respondent may adversely affect their own entitlements; and

(d)      that they may make submissions and otherwise participate in the appeals to the extent permitted by the first respondent;

(4)       that the first order made by Douglas J on 29 March 2000 cease to have effect immediately;

(5)       that the moneys held in the trust account of Bottoms English pursuant to the third order made by Douglas J on 29 March 2000 be remitted to Australian Co-operative Foods Limited trading as Malanda Dairy Farmers, to be paid out in accordance…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read J.B. Geraghty v Dairy Industry Tribunal and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] QSC 144
Decision Date: 19 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of J.B. Geraghty v Dairy Industry Tribunal, the applicants sought judicial review of decisions made by the Dairy Industry Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal had breached the rules of natural justice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with Justice Byrne presiding. The applicants, J.B. Geraghty and others, sought to set aside the decisions of the Dairy Industry Tribunal, claiming that the Tribunal had failed to provide adequate notice to all interested parties and had made errors of law. The legal issues before the court included whether the Tribunal had breached the rules of natural justice, whether there were errors of law in the Tribunal’s decisions, and what orders should follow if the court found in favour of the applicants.

The court found that the Tribunal had indeed breached the rules of natural justice by failing to provide proper notice to all interested parties, which was a significant procedural error. The court also identified errors of law in the Tribunal’s decisions. As a result, the court set aside the decisions of the Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for redetermination according to law. The court emphasised that the Tribunal must give proper notice to all producers holding market milk entitlements in the North Queensland supply management region, ensuring that they are aware of the redetermination process and can participate as permitted. Additionally, the court ordered that any moneys held in a trust account be remitted to Australian Co-operative Foods Limited trading as Malanda Dairy Farmers, in accordance with a previous determination. The unsuccessful milk producer respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the applicants, and indemnity certificates were granted to the respondents under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 to cover their costs. The Tribunal was directed to bear its own costs, and no costs order was made against it.

Orders

Orders of the court

In application no S1466 of 2000

(1) that the decision of the first respondent of 24 January 2000 be set aside, with effect from that date;

(2) that the matter be referred to the first respondent to be determined according to law;

(3) that the first respondent give notice to all producers holding market milk entitlements in the North Queensland supply management region -

(a) of the decision of this Court setting aside the decision of the first respondent;

(b) that the appeals are to be determined by the first respondent according to law;

(c) that any increase in the market milk entitlements of the appellants in the proceedings before the first respondent may adversely affect their own entitlements; and

(d) that they may make submissions and otherwise participate in the appeals to the extent permitted by the first respondent;

(4) that the first order made by Douglas J on 29 March 2000 cease to have effect immediately;

(5) that the moneys held in the trust account of Bottoms English pursuant to the third order made by Douglas J on 29 March 2000 be remitted to Australian Co-operative Foods Limited trading as Malanda Dairy Farmers, to be paid out in accordance with the determination of the second respondent made on 15 December 1998;

(6) that the third respondents pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis;

(7) that the third respondents be granted an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15(1) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973;

(8) that there be no order as to the costs of the first respondent;

(9) that there be no order as to the costs of the second respondent.

In application no S1524 of 2000